/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8505819
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

>>8505819
>>8505842
>youtube
>bloomberg
this is why no one takes you guys seriously

>>8505819
Nah climate change is legit, although it is being used to expand government. The best example of that isn't regulation though, it's "carbon taxes" and in some places, like Britain, the euphemistically called "green levy". It's been pretty well document that carbon taxes don't work, yet they seem to be here to stay. The green levy in Britain is automatically added to household energy bills to subsidise green energy projects, when in reality building a couple nuclear power plants would be a much more worthwhile investment.

So, just so we're clear:
>Climate change is real
>Human activity is causing it
>Governments are using it as an excuse to expand their powers
>But mostly though excessive taxation.

>>8505851
>implying your hivemind is any better

>>8505819
I'm not going to watch an hour of stephen molyneux videos. This is basically filibustering.

>>8505819
You went on Youtube, found the first five videos on global warming, and brought them here, didn't you?

You need to go back.
>>>/pol/ack

>>8505855
>Nah climate change is legit, although it is being used to expand government.

Somebody got to pay for all those dykes and pumping stations.

>>8505855
Carbon taxes are beneficial even if the money isn't being spent on mitigation, since they disincentivize emissions. Moderate carbon taxes will save billions of dollars in damage later on.

>>8505864
Just watch the first one which is only 12 minutes long then. That alone gets most of the main points down.

>>8505872
no I'm a pretty big Molyjew fan so I posted all his vids on climate change. I've watched all of them at one point or another, some of the shorter ones multiple times. I don't expect you to watch all of them or any really, but first vid gets most of main points down about the fact that none of the climate models have been accurate, water vapor isn't going up substantially if at all, and that many people are making lots of money off this stuff which would give them incentive to push this stuff even if its not true.

>>8505819
I dont want to be disrespectful, i didnt watch your vids.
Yes it is real.
There is absolutely no doubt within my mind or throughout the scientific community.
We're gonna have an ice age far sooner than expected, whop de doo.

>>8505851
what is wrong with the boomberg graph? It has sources...

>>8505819
Just follow the money.

Most of the government proposals to combat green house gasses cost them more money than they make, when you take into account revenue losses, and what little money they do make tends to be earmarked for global warming efforts, meaning it doesn't do those in the business of corruption much good.

Meanwhile, the industry who is actually affected the changes is looking at billions of dollars with of investments to comply, with little to no gain, with the possible exception of those who find ways to trade in the commodities, and sell equipment and services to make compliance easier - but they are a tiny minority compared to the existing economic structure.

So, those advocating human induced climate change aren't nearly as financially motivated as those who wish to deny it.

Now, there's political power to be considered, but it wasn't that long ago that the GOP was the party for restricting industrial growth in the name of preventing major changes to the American way of life. At some point, the Democrats hijacked this stance, but at the same time, it's to their determinate to do so, as it costs them, to one degree or another, the support of several industries, including the ever popular petroleum industry.

And, as far as /pol/ goes, the financial interests that would be hit hardest by stricter climate laws, would of course, be those owned by Jews.

>>8505855
Wew! That's some clever rationalization. The "hoax" label is actually part of the larger fraud for the same reason, if it's all made out to be some sort of joke on the little people they are less likely to start taking a serious look as to where all that pilfered wealth is really going. It is going to enrich corrupt bureaucrats and politicians with some going to enlarge the propaganda bombardment and reinforcement campaigns.

Bottom line is it's a theory that cannot be proven only debunked but this requires waiting for up to 100 years for the computer climate simulations to fail. Should there actually be a rise in temperature it still could be natural as has happened thousands of times through earths history apparently, all the more likely now since we are just coming out of a glacial maximum and in geological time practically yesterday.

I think in light of peak conventional oil and other serious resource depletion scenarios down the road the powers that be are securing energy and looking for global draconian control before control is lost to nationalization for example. As fossil fuels deplete and population continues to grow I think we are in for a wild ride with regard to pricing and access. This extra burden being placed on the end consumer is simply bringing that day of reckoning about sooner. this also explains why all the attention is on fossil fuels and not some of the largest sources of so called greenhouse gases like livestock production, volcanoes and water vapor. I watched Cowspiracy the other day.

Global Warming is one of the biggest hoaxes in human history.

>>8505890
>Just watch the first one which is only 12 minutes long then. That alone gets most of the main points down.
OK, let's do this.

Skeptic Claim 1: The feedbacks reduce the greenhouse effect.

If this were true then the climatological history of the Earth would be very different from what it actually is. What we see is that the Earth swings between glacial and interglacial periods. Glacial periods end quickly and begin slowly. This is because they end when the orbital eccentricity of the Earth causes it to receive more solar radiation, which evaporates CO2 and water vapor from the oceans, which warm the Earth further via the greenhouse effect, creating a positive feedback loop which rapidly warms the Earth. Eventually the orbital eccentricity of the Earth swings back and the Earth slowly cools back into a glacial phase. If the feedback loop reduced the greenhouse effect, we would see the exact opposite, the Earth would constantly be glacial and only warm slowly, as there is nothing to cause rapid warming.

The fact that feedback loops increase the greenhouse effect is based not just on fundamental theory but on direct empirical observations of the effect of water vapor. The skeptics who find sensitivity of 1 degree or less are most commonly cherrypicking a brief period of low warming and calculating sensitivity from that. It's simply faulty science. Here's an article discussing the phenomenon among skeptics https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/12/nasa-study-fixes-error-in-low-contrarian-climate-sensitivity-estimates

>>8505916
Actually, orbital eccentricity does not change from year to year. There is a part of the year where the Earth is closer to the Sun and a part where it is farther from the Sun. The same amount of time is spent in these zones every year.

What is thought to cause the long-term fluctuations are the 11-year solar cycles, with periods of higher sunspot activity causing a slight increase in global temperature.

>>8505890
>none of the climate models have been accurate
not really true, though the climate is a complex system that would be nearly impossible to model with 100% accuracy
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html
>water vapor isn't going up
not true
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
>monetary incentive to push this stuff
The fossil fuel industry is worth trillions and has a definite monetary incentive to deny global warming and has stated in the past that they intended to sow doubt on the subject. The idea that the government is attempting to use global warming to expand its power is idiotic, considering many carbon tax proposals are revenue-neutral

>>8505897
>Just follow the money.

Big Pump?

http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/03/13/low-lying-miami-beach-road-may-get-a-new-seawall/

>>8505929
>The idea that the government is attempting to use global warming to expand its power is idiotic, considering many carbon tax proposals are revenue-neutral
It's not about tax revenue, it's about government control of industry and of personal cunsumption of goods.

Also, it's a huge UN scam to get America to pay billions of dollars to underdeveloped nations

>>8505922
>Actually, orbital eccentricity does not change from year to year.
Orbital eccentricity does change over much longer timescales (tens of thousands of years) and that is what I was referring to, not seasonal eccentricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Orbital_shape_.28eccentricity.29

Rather than participate in yet the n-teenth climate denialist thread on /sci/, I'm just glad to see OP admitting he's a /pol/luter from the get go rather than try to hide the elephant in the room. I just wish shit/pol/sters would keep their trash in /pol/.

And for anyone who may wonder, no, I did not bump the thread as is very possible from the options field.

>>8505944
>Orbital eccentricity does change over much longer timescales (tens of thousands of years) and that is what I was referring to, not seasonal eccentricity.
Ahhhhh, thanks for clearing that up. I jumped the gun on that part of my post.

What do you think about the short-term solar cycle effects?

>>8505940
The UN accords is to help offset the very real loss some countries (e.g. Marshall islands) are experiencing due to rising sea waters or other climatic events. Considering that the U.S. is one of the biggest emitters of green gases, then, yes, it is responsible in fixing the problems it has helped create.

>>8505890
Skeptic Claim 2: Hansen's 1988 predictions are wrong

Yes, they're wrong because they overestimated climate sensitivity (also the three scenarios do not match today's greenhouse gas concentrations). A climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C results in the observed trend. The video fails to point this out because it directly contradicts their first point.

Another thing to point out is that skeptics often claim that the satellite temperature data is "more accurate" than thermometer stations, but they're not. The only reason skeptics prefer them is because they show colder temperatures than the surface. It is important to remember that satellites don't measure the temperature of the surface but of the lower troposphere.

>>8505952
>What do you think about the short-term solar cycle effects?
They're a big source of short term variation but they're much too short to explain the modern warming trend or glaciation.

>>8505929
The fossil fuel industry provides something we all use and modern life would become unbearable without these fuels and billions would die quickly. On the other hand, the governments are really parasitic in nature and only write law, start wars that consume enormous amounts of resources, control and restrict people and provide nothing substantial in return.

>>8505940
The UN wants nothing but to be the new age world government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...they have been mired in 1000 wars now with 0 wins, their troops spend more time raping the natives than anything else, this is just the tip of an iceberg should it be allowed to carry on further and expand its control of the world resources and in particular energy resources which it obviously has its eyeballs on.

>>8505944
Orbit schmorebit. We can be pretty sure the earth was formed into a steaming lump of rock and has been cooling ever since, eventually it will become a lifeless frozen rock and its atmosphere blown away as the atmosphere was created by the out gassing of these fused materials in the first place. As the core cools and out gassing ceases entirely as will tectonic activity, that is the beginning of the end of life on earth.

>>8505819
>green market becoming a multi-billion dollar industry
The petroleum sector is still much more profitable, and are just as influential in Washington if not more.

>>8505855
>>8505933

>>8505975
>Orbit schmorebit.
Yes, don't look both ways when you cross the street because the Earth will be uninhabitable in billions of years...

>>8505975
>As the core cools and out gassing ceases entirely as will tectonic activity, that is the beginning of the end of life on earth.
The sun will go full American and burn us all alive long before the core is anywhere near cooled.

>>8505857
>Implying your god awful political cartoon has any worthwhile merits as a rebuttal

>>8505890
Skeptic Claim 3: We haven't been measuring ocean temps properly since 2003, so the models are wrong.

Yet another example of cherrypicking. There is no reason to reject previous ocean heat data and ARGO buoys suffer from many of the same issues as previous measurements. When you take all the data into account, the "prediction" is actually just the trendline of observed ocean warming.

>>8505933
This. The costs of adapting to climate change will far exceed the money your boogeymen stand to gain.

The Arctic Ocean is en route to perennial icelessness for the first time in recorded history.
The Greenland Ice sheet is accelerating toward the sea on all sides.

Are the Chinese faking that too?

>>8505979
I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages, it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record - the real science - seems to indicate. AGW is pure projection and speculation, questionable data inputs, and highly questionable motives of not just the politicians but the climate priests themselves.

>>8505989
I doubt that as well. We have frozen poles already and the sun seems in the game for the long haul. I mean the entire field of climate change should be treated as a curiosity in the realm of predicting how long our sun will last or better science going into core cooling projections, not to enable a global taxation system, that's fucking ludicrous really. If you have a problem with the environment be specific and address that, AGW is probably the most damaging meme for the environment ever invented for the sole reason it acts as a catch basin and red herring for real, specific and addressable environmental problems. If you have a problem with fossil fuels you better find a good substitute first or out go your lights. then what are you going to bitch about all day on Al Gores internets?

>>8506012
>highly questionable motives

>>8505940
>>8505975
>Muh UN conspiracy!
I don't know how folks fail to realize that the UN is a puppet of the US, and a key instrumentation for its will. The US makes up all of the UN's real teeth, is the top contributor to its funding by more than double of the next (Japan), and the US has absolute veto power over anything the UN decides to do. Thus, everything the UN wants to do depends not only on US approval, but on its assistance, while simultaneously, the US is completely free to ignore any of its criticisms.

>it's about government control of industry and of personal consumption of goods.
A power which every government in the goddamned world already has. Every government regulates its industry, and its economy to boot. That's what governments do. Further. there's been no climate change solution, that I've seen, making demands around personal consumption. The most radical proposals I've come across only require that said already existing industry regulation be uniformed towards a central goal, and the creation of a global market mechanism to help encourage that effort.

And the only industries I see fighting all this so hard are all owned by Jews, so it boggles my mind that the so-called alt-right has jumped so quickly onto the climate change denial bandwagon.

>>8505902
Cowspiracy makes good points such as livestock are a large source of emissions, but they tweak a lot of numbers.
Fossil fuels are the biggest emitters and need to be adressed.
And plenty of greenies cry about livestock farming emissions, but denial websites and news outlets don't mention that

>>8505890
Skeptic Claim 4: The Tropospheric Hotspot is the most "prominent" feature of climatological theory and its missing

This one is a bit more nuanced, so read up on why it's false here: http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

Skeptic Claim 5: Outgoing radiation is increasing

The sole source of this claim is a single flawed paper which contradicts essentially every other study on the same question and has been debunked numerous times: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

What all of these claims essentially boil down to is a willingness to misleadingly present only some parts of the picture (and exaggerate those parts) in order to argue for a preconceived ideological conclusion. It's not scientific.

>>8506012
>I doubt that as well.
So you just doubt every scientific consensus? I don't think there's even a single scientist making the argument the core will cool before the sun kills us in its death throws - during which time it the core get a pretty thorough infusion of heat.

>>8506012
>I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages
Oh wow, you DOUBT it. Well then I suppose we'll just have to chuck all the work done on Milankovitch cycles, since you DOUBT it.

>it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record
What you need to explain is not why there are ice ages but why there are periods of time which are NOT ice ages (such as the one we are in now) which start with fast warming.

>AGW is pure projection and speculation
The pot calling the kettle black.

>>8506012
>environmental problems
>specific and addressable

The Earth system is a mess of interconnected parts. You're out of your depth.

>>8506012
>I seriously doubt a wobbly orbit is the source of ice ages, it is the gradual cooling of the planet and they will become far more common over geological time as the record - the real science - seems to indicate.
I've seen this batshit idea put forth several times on /sci/ and I'm starting to suspect that it's all just one guy with a babby-tier understanding of planetary energy balance. he basically thinks that because the Earth is slowly cooling, we're seeing more and more ice ages and there's nothing that can be done about it.
this idea is only plausible if one remains entirely ignorant of the multiple "Snowball Earth" episodes of the Proterozoic.

So is global warming real or not?
If its real is it proven that man is its cause?

>>8506089
>So is global warming real?
Absolutely and without doubt.
Look at basically any surface temperature dataset.

>If its real is it proven that man is its cause?
It's considered highly likely that humans are the cause.
Most of the studies I've seen attribute 80%-120% of the observed warming to human activity.

>Molyneux as a source

Yeah, I think you might want to actually take a look at the data yourself, learn something about cilmate, the basics of how CO2 and other greenhouse gasses work in our atmosphere, as well as learn about past climate of the Earth that we know of before taking anything that twat says for granted. Here is a good, very basic starting point, branch off from there, read Wikipedia articles on climate change which are very well sourced / written.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This is the problem, people look at some loudmouthed nobody who isn't an expert, nor does he even understand the science behind climate change, spouting off a bunch of nonsense, creating a web of conspiracy and bullshit over something that is a scientific concept.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of denialists. You cannot argue with them because they don't listen, you try to show them legitimate studies, show how the petroleum industry has lobbied extensively over the years for denial, and they simply ignore it. They don't care about the truth, they just want to be contrarians because it rebels against "muh liberal scientists tryin' to tax muh carbon!"

You guys get wrapped up into this world where everything is a conspiracy, where everyone is out to get you with some secret agenda, it's all a load of horse-shit. You live in a fantasy world.

You've already been BTFO in this thread several times by other based anons, if you refuse to actually look at the evidence, then you can fuck off back to your hugbox on /pol/ please, where you have a full on circle jerk of alt-right autists to parrot your shitty opinions.

>>8505819
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&index=1&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Here OP, assuming you actually want to know the truth, this is an excellent series of videos explaining the evidence surrounding anthropogenic climate change (which happens to predominantly support it) and the guy who makes them is a real class act.
>scrupulously sources everything he says beyond high school textbook level shit
>not only thoroughly debunks denier memes but does the research to track them down to their misconceived origins
>doesn't hesitate to issue corrections to his videos when he's shown to be wrong
>degree in geology and worked for years as a science journalist, knows what it's like in the scientific community

vs Stefan Molyneux:
>clickbait thumbnails
>just stands in front of a camera and gives his opinion for thirty minutes
>no scientific training, very shallow understanding of the subject matter
>doesn't cite scientific studies to support his views
>often fails to even cite specific examples of what he objects to

Isn't it ironic that deniers always cherrypick their data to "prove" that global warming isn't real / human caused, when cherrypicking is the exact same thing that they accuse climate researchers of doing in their studies? Those Molyneaux videos are the epitome of cherrypicking. Every single study he uses to prove some kind of vast conspiracy has been discredited.

They find one article, one study that says for example, sea ice is not declining in Antarctica (which is probably isn't) and suddenly they ignore all the evidence showing sea ice having a net decrease that is accelerating worldwide.

They only accept "science" as real if it supports their conclusions, oh but any other scientific study that comes out disproving / discrediting their study and that's fake, junk science to them.

Real scientists want to be skeptics, want to question the consensus on climate change because that's what science does, it seeks to understand the world to our best ability using empirical evidence. If there is a paper that comes out challenging the accepted view on climate change, scientists pay attention, they read this paper because they want to understand what data has caused that person to come to this conclusion. They study it and often find flaws in the paper, things that the authors didn't take into account and whatnot.

That said, there really isn't much skepticism over climate change anymore, because the consensus shows a trend of warming that is well documented and supported by ample observations and data worldwide by tens of thousands of scientists and scientific bodies. This is why people that deny the consensus aren't really skeptics anymore, they are denialists.

I wish we could build a wall between pol and sci

AGW is real, and only the tip of the iceberg (heh). Feel free to deny it all you like; it's too late to stop it.

>>8506019
>it boggles my mind that the so-called alt-right has jumped so quickly onto the climate change denial bandwagon
But anon, caring about the environment and accepting ((((scientific consensus)))) is for leftist cucks!

>>8506162
I guess we'll see in 50 years when New York City isn't underwater (kind of hoping it does though).

>>8505819
Go back stormfaggot

>>8505819
the biggest true about climate change isn't if its real or not, it is how much people contribute to it

naturally the climate fluctuates over many years, and when it was noticed in the 80's, scientists/government lackeys jumped on that real quick like
they blame carbon emissions and aerosol for the majority of it, in Nov 93 the passed a regulation to change A/C fluid, that was on the list of causes

>some stupid regs:
even though the fluid was only minutely changed, went from CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) to HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon), it 100% no longer affected the ozone, but the new fluid was still illegal to disperse into the atmosphere
shitty government fines are $10,000 per incident per day

>>8506722
>70+ years of climate observations
>real quick like

Find a different planet to ruin, we like this one.

>>8505819
Ofcourse global warming is real! I mean just listen to this distinguished environmentalist telling you how things really are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS1l2X_G9Q

>>8506774
nice rebuttal weeb sensei

>>8506803
>I mean just listen to this distinguished environmentalist
But don't listen to the distinguished scientists... Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

>>8505940
>it's about government control of industry and of personal cunsumption of goods.
This predates global warming by like four hundred years.

Climate change is very much a thing, and humans have been shown to be the predominant source of heating though the emission of greenhouse gasses. I'll just leave this here, for those of you who are actually interested in the science behind this claim.
>inb4 /pol/e waxers cannot into paywall
Use sci hub.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/465
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1517
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1784.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate1963.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2397.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n11/full/nclimate3110.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.abstract?sid=e88a32fa-d470-486d-92ea-97bf18db30c9
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1406.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_2/19729.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5743.abstract?sid=39886508-9022-4ac9-a270-9bb8f2c84dac

>>8506152
>sea ice is not declining in Antarctica
this is actually true, but the reason Antarctic sea ice is holding steady is because there's more ice flowing off the landmass due to higher temperatures near the coast.
but yeah, deniers like to cherry-pick statistics that, taken out of context, can be twisted into supporting their argument. they especially like to post graphs showing a downward trend without paying attention to what those graphs represent; I once had a denier show me a figure showing a decline in the estimated error of a temperature series and claim that it showed a decrease in temperature (rather than an increase in accuracy).

>>8505819
So, since the start of the industrial age humans have put out 500 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is CO2 that has no natural sinks. It goes up and stays there (a percentage of the extra does go into the ocean where it turns into Carbonic Acid, which isn't good either)

That is not debatable.

An increase of 500 billion tons of CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.

That is not debatable.

Climate scientists call this the smoking gun. If you hear a gunshot and you run into the parlor and the master of the house is dead with a bullet hole in the chest and the butler is standing there with a smoking gun what are the chances he just murdered the master of the house?

Ok, sure, he may have died of a heart attack. Maybe you think the chauffeur did it. But then you've got to explain the obvious question. What do you do about the butler with the smoking gun? You can't just ignore it and try to come up with other ideas.

So stop ignoring the question and explain to me this. If mankind isn't causing climate change, what is? And you can't ignore the 500 billion tons of CO2. You have to explain to all of us what it's doing there. Don't get all dodgy with uneducated garbage blogs and videos. Answer the question.

>>8506018
It produces something of tangible value as opposed to basically terrorist climate doom prophecies coming from bureaucratic parasitic organizations. Choose wisely if you must!

>>8506019
>Jews
Da Joooos! Are you aware the UN is going to be headed up by a devout Roman Catholic soon? In any case the Abrahamics are attempting to roll with a new age technocracy and the UN is an obvious proxy, not to be trusted and certainly not enabled in any way. The most nefarious aspect of their operations is they infiltrate on all levels of government, from global right down to municipal and so called grass roots voluntary movements.

>>8506020
Well all the numbers are questionable and mysteriously they all come to these nicely rounded enormous sums. It is safe to say the data lies and is biased from the source every time these days. I thought the flick was interesting in how the director came to the self realization Al Gore duped him. The world is a business Mr. Beale!

>>8506026
>scientific consensus
Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion. I don't believe in cloud fairies but there is consensus among half the worlds population they exist. Your argument carries the same weight.

>>8506028
>>8506085
Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time. We know the earth has a molten core as we don't have to even drill down very far to feel the heat. I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations. I am more than happy to investigate wobbly orbit theory further if it makes you happy! I think the point is AGW is entirely theory, unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources. The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all, fucking ludicrous to base a tax on at this juncture.

>>8508021
Jesus fucking Christ, have you tried learning from anything other than poorly-edited youtube videos?

>terrorist climate doom prophecies coming from bureaucratic parasitic organizations
>the Abrahamics are attempting to roll with a new age technocracy and the UN is an obvious proxy
>they infiltrate on all levels of government, from global right down to municipal and so called grass roots
Stop.
Really, just stop.

>Well all the numbers are questionable and mysteriously they all come to these nicely rounded enormous sums.
Have you never heard of rounding?

>It is safe to say the data lies and is biased from the source every time these days
It is most definitely NOT safe to assume that. You would actually need to demonstrate it.

>Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion.
It's a consensus of experts based on research and study.
If you have reason to think that they are wrong, you are welcome to submit it to the same peer-review systems that they use.

>I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations.
You didn't make a point though, you just asserted that they had ignored it.

>I think the point is AGW is entirely theory
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources.
That's complete and utter bullshit, and you would have discovered that with a 5 minute google search.
The evidence for AGW doesn't depend on computer models at all, it depends on observations and basic physics.
The computer models are for making better predictions of the climate in the future.
Also: "impossible".

>The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all,
You're still asserting shit without supporting it. Why should I believe you that the data is "suspect"?

>>8508021
>Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion.
Um, what a "scientific consensus" basically is is when everyone who tests a hypothesis gets more or less the same result, to the point where all or almost all of the research on the topic is in agreement.

>>8508021

>Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time.
Not Actually True. Keep clinging to that meme though, it's funny.
>We know the earth has a molten core as we don't have to even drill down very far to feel the heat.
We know that the outer core of the Earth is molten (the inner core is actually solid) because of the P-wave shadow zone. The fact that the deep crust and the mantle are hot has very little to do with rocks melting. (In fact, when rocks melt to produce magmas, they usually COOL while doing so.)
>I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations.
You're demonstrating your ignorance. You really think the slow cooling of the Earth's core influences 100-year trends in temperature at the surface? Let's say that 10 million years' worth of cooling causes temperature to drop by 1 K. That's pretty gradual, right? In fact, over the course of all of human prehistory, we'd only see a change of 0.2 K.
Well, that super gradual effect would imply that in the Cambrian period, when animals really made their big appearance, the surface would have been 54 K hotter than today, hot enough to fry an egg. And 2.2 billion years ago, when the Great Oxygen Catastrophe was getting started, the temperature would have been 220 K hotter; things would be literally boiling hot for another billion years still. And yet we know from fossil evidence that liquid water was abundant at the surface, that there was plenty of aquatic life, and that there were even major glaciation events. CLEARLY, therefore, the Earth's cooling cannot have a noticeable effect on climate on the timescales of interest.
See, we can predict the future by studying the past. And if you'd only had the sense to realize that, you wouldn't have made that retarded-ass post. But you did.

>>8505819
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

nope

>>8508425
Oh wow, the professional deniers are even less skilled than the shitty amateur AGW deniers were get here. How the hell did the Seirra guy resist the urge to call him a fuckface?
>Yes, we get it. 1998 was a warm year. Now shut up you pompous twit.

Its happening, but the whole hoax accusations are coming from the layman that eats any conspiracy theory up. The government IS trying to use global warming as an excuse to get more power and government jobs. However theres plenty of US politicians who have fed off the said idiots above who buy up any conspiracy and pander to them harder than a democrat in a room full of illegals.

>>8505819
Hasn't stefan already been proven to be full of shit, and a cult leader at that?

>>8505819
If you go to The Royal Society (national academy of science for the UK) page, you can search for several documents signed by the national academy of sciences of pretty much every first and second world nation attesting that yes climate change is occurring, yes is is human caused, and yes the IPCC does represent the scientific community in this area. I'm sure you can find similar documents on other sites like NASA's, but the royal society was the easiest for me.

There is a scientific consensus and it is that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Why is it so hard for people to differ between man made global warming and climate change.
Fucking retards.

>>8508454
>Ted Cruz, in congress, actually quoted the 'no warming in 18 years'

You have got to be joking. We should have congress shot.

>>8508527

Everyone's an expert these days.

>>8508021
>Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time.
That depends what you mean by "ice age" but it's probably wrong either way. Ice age is a generic term and you probably mean glacial periods. It's also entirely irrelevant to AGW, which is on an incomparably smaller timescale and is mechanistically independent from the core of the earth cooling.

>I think the point is AGW is entirely theory, unpossible to prove and the only evidence is suspect computer simulations coming from highly suspect sources.
Well that point is demonstrably false, since the main evidence is and always has been direct empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect and direct empirical measurement of the sources of incoming infrared radiation via spectroscopy.

>The mountains of data suspect, the sheer quantity of variables suspect and all in all, fucking ludicrous to base a tax on at this juncture.
It would be nice if you could actually point out how the data or conclusions are scientifically incorrect, instead of just calling anything you don't want to be true "suspect." Conspiracy logic is not an argument.

>>8508527
Here's a hint: current climate change is man-made global warming

So now that we've fucked up and the icecaps gonna melt, what kind of shit should I do to prepare my family for the future of no food and mass immigration?

>>8507976
hey listen maybe he just likes shooting corpses

don't kinkshame

>>8508527
A better question is why people consider them to be different things.

My theory is that most people think that "warming" specifically means an increase in temperature (when latent heat accounts for much of it), and more specifically air temperature increases (the heat capacity of the atmosphere is rather small compared to that of the oceans).

>>8505890
I have a phd in geology and i can show you climate change in a continuous sequence of rocks representing several millions of years.

the shorelines have moved back an forth like waves over the millions of years

this time it may not be like a wave since it is not related to the same cycles as in the past

We have shifted the balance by taking material that was in a slow part of the earth sysstem e.g. erosion mm per year of specific energy rich deposits and put it back into the earth system.

If you think there will be no consequence you are in denial.

>>8506012
Dear shit poster

fuck off

sincerely

A Geologist

Ps Just stop talking about bout shit you have no knowledge about.

>>8507976
@ op look here and then consider the thermodynamics of this imbalance

Focus on CO2: 1900 300ppm, 2015 400ppm. The climate changers claim that by adding 1 CO2 molecule to 10,000 air molecules over a period of more than a century they totally control the climate.

They must be suffering from terminal thermocephaly.

>>8505949
/pol/ is an echo chamber where dumb people go to get "redpilled" on bullshit conspiracy crap, then they come out thinking they are geniuses with secret knowledge of the universe. Inevitably they drift in here, get BTFO, and leave.

>>8508425
i don't know what to feel about that video. How can the Sierra guy be so badly prepared? The "no warming in 18 years" is a stupid argument easy to counter. Yet in the video it gives the impression that Cruz "won".

DAMN, why did I checked the comment section of that video? Lost all faith in humanity

>he lives near the coast

Hahahahaha

>>8506122
why did it fell to such a low point in c.1950?

>>8508768
/thread

>>8508768
> 1 CO2 molecule to 10,000 air molecules over a period of more than a century
You're not on /pol/ now. Most people here will be well aware that a) the absolute concentration isn't relevant (a 33% increase is substantial) and b) a century is effectively instantaneous compared to most of the time constants involved.

>>8508768
>>8508793
>something seems counterintuitive therefore must be bullshit

Where do you think we are?

>>8508768
>One factor
Look at this brainlet

>>8508814
They got lost on the way to /pol/

>>8506148
THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS

>>8508047
>Jesus fucking Christ
When you start a reply off like that and then setup a strawman about goo-tube videos you really do need to stop. I understand the appeal of the new age AGW religion for you, it's OK!

Yes climate scientists are biased because their paycheck revolves around towing the line, why only 97% of climate scientists are in consensus over the meme and not 100% is the only curiosity.

The body of evidence for AGW is entirely simulation and synthetic. Based entirely on projection. Like the biblical end of days prophecies these simply cannot be debunked nor proven. An unpossible conundrum and paradox that seems to garner much traction and attract the cultist mentality.

>>8508338
So you admit the earth is cooling yet this has no effect on the climate in your "timescales of interest". Fascinating!

>>8508662
>I have a phd in geology
>this time it may not be like a wave
>not related to the same cycles as in the past
wtf are you even talking about?

>>8508673
>fuck off
>sincerely
>A Geologist
Wew, the field is in a sorry state today apparently!

>>8508822
>typical brainlet response

>>8505819
Is there even a single evidence for global warming ?

>>8508954
Y-you too.

>>8505819
Global warming exists, but it causes problems which are more ecological than climatological.

>>8509111
Refer to >>8507034

>>8509207
From the first link...
>Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing

The only science there is social science, that is new age scripture alluding to a prophecy of climate doom as a means to an end, a carbon tithe. It's pure speculation and theory with so many variables, so much massaging as to become a completely meaningless prediction.
It would carry more weight if the people who publish this claptrap just admit they do it for a paycheck and their simulations could be wildly inaccurate and for the most part, complete bullshit.

If on the other hand the climate priests had been at it for 1000 years now, with their very specific recordings and very precise simulations it would be slightly harder to refute as many many generations of children would have been well indoctrinated into the AGW cult by then regardless of what was really happening with the climate of earth. To verify this look no further than the Abrahamic religions whose prophecies fail every year yet they somehow garner more followers? Hmmm, how does that work? Well, getting hold of infantile brains before critical thinking skills kick in is one way!

>>8509302
You said literally nothing of value. Nothing. These are not arguments, this is a loosely thrown together collection of rhetoric tricks and factual inaccuracies.

For example:
>completely meaningless prediction
One of the links in the earlier posts already shows this wrong. Now it's up to you to find it, and attempt to formulate an actual argument.

>>8509111
Of course, how else did we come out of the last little ice age. No amount of CO2 will be enough to avert the coming one.

Is the globe real? Yes

Is warmth real? Yes

Therefore, global warming is real

>>8509091
>The body of evidence for AGW is entirely simulation and synthetic. Based entirely on projection. Like the biblical end of days prophecies these simply cannot be debunked nor proven. An unpossible conundrum and paradox that seems to garner much traction and attract the cultist mentality.
Is English your second, or perhaps, third language?

>>8509371
how can our globe be real if our warmth isn't real

>>8509302
>It would carry more weight if the people who publish this claptrap just admit they do it for a paycheck and their simulations could be wildly inaccurate and for the most part, complete bullshit.
You really have no idea how science works, do you?
>Our experiment suggests particles exhibit wave interference properties!
>Absolutely not! Burn your maths and destroy your experiment, and if you so much as suggest new and interesting physics beyond out limited classical model you'll be fired!
>Oh no, I better do what he says or no one will hire me again! Scientists hate having their expectations shattered!

>>8508788
Most likely due to anthropogenic aerosols, you can see similar behaviour after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in '91.

>>8506004
In what parallel universe do you live ?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

>>8505819
The world is provably getting warmer, you only need to look at year-to-year temperatures at any given place over a long time to see that. As for how much influence we have on that, that's very hard to determine and prove. I think it's a fair bit, but I can't back that up very well because the whole situation is frustrating and depressing so I haven't sought out a lot of information on it since I was younger.

>>8509454
>Arctic
>Antarctic
One of these is not like the other.

>>8509461
Refer to >>8507034

>>8508778
Scientists aren't known for being the best arguing. What they should do is hire less autistic, introverted, unsociable people, like Bill Nye and NDGT but less well known, and have them make the case.

>>8509454
>antarctic-ice
In which hemisphere do you live ?

>>8505819
>legitimize more govmt reg
ok

>>8509454
the sheet length vs mass
snow vs core ice
k.
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”"
net gain in sea levels unaccounted for

>>8506122

You're so deep I can't even see you anymore.

>Most of the studies I've seen attribute 80%-120% of the observed warming to human activity.

Like, we did all of it, and even 20% more ?

>>8509302
It is difficult to fathom that you are being lied to by politicians, their scientists and their presstitutes who all know exactly what they're doing, that you have always been lied to. It would totally shatter your world view. And still it is true. The AGW/CO2 narrative goes back to the Club of Rome/Iron Mountain project 'Manufacture and Sale of Fictitious Enemies'. You are now the climate enemy. A war here and a billion there and soon you have a public/private partnership with the science of brainwashing up and running.

Still waiting for the solution to global warming. People like to picture some evil CEO rubbing his hands together as he pumps green house gasses into the air but in reality it's all of us. Al Gore, Obama, you, me, we are all the problem. I'm sitting here typing this out on a laptop made on the other side of the world that was shipping here on a tanker burning thousands of gallons of diesel to get it here. The fact is western life is not compatible with sustainable emissions. People want to talk cutting emissions until it comes time to pay for it.

So unless someone has carbon nano tube batteries and 4x more efficient solar cells in thier back pockets we don't really have any alternatives

>>8509371
>Is the globe real? Yes

>actually believing the Earth isn't flat

>>8509550
>Like, we did all of it, and even 20% more ?
Yes. What this means is that we observed X amount of warming, our emissions caused 1.2X amount of warming, and natural mechanisms caused 0.2X amount of cooling.

>>8508768
how about we add 1 molecule of strychnine to each 10,000 molecules in your body and see how you like it.

>>8509091
>The body of evidence for AGW is entirely simulation and synthetic. Based entirely on projection.
...apart from all the measurements showing that the Earth is actually warming due to an intensified greenhouse effect.

>you admit the earth is cooling yet this has no effect on the climate
blaming the slow cooling of the Earth for climate change at the surface is like blaming the heat death of the universe for your room being messy. the scales aren't REMOTELY comparable.
I mean, you're dead wrong about glaciation increasing over geologic history; there's no clear trend, and the Earth just oscillates irregularly between hothouse and icehouse states. But even leaving those facts aside, how long do you think it takes for the surface to cool by 1 K as a result of the Earth's core cooling? Let's hear your number on that one. (spoileralert: your claims on this matter are inconsistent with the evidence for liquid water at the surface of the Earth during the post-Hadean.)

>wtf are you even talking about?
he's saying that because the forcings driving current warming are different from those responsible for past climatic cycles, the current warming may be unidirectional rather than cyclical. even in broken English, it's not hard to understand, you brainlet.

>a geologist told me to fuck off
>that was mean
>[salt]
this other geoscientist figures you can fuck all the way off also.

>>8509454
you are actually retarded

>>8509550
>I posted it again lol!

>>8509591
>It would totally shatter your world view.
Why do you conspiracy fucks think that "OMG ITLL BLOW YOURE MIND" is a substitute for actual evidence?
I can make up with claims of massive global conspiracies too, it's not very hard. The bit that anyone cares about is if you can actually substantiate any of your claims, and you obviously can't.

>>8509622
>Still waiting for the solution to global warming.
Step one of putting a fire out is to stop adding fuel to the fire.
In this particular case, step zero is to stop increasing the rate we're piping fuel onto the fire.

>in reality it's all of us. Al Gore, Obama, you, me, we are all the problem.
Eh, sortof. We're all part of the problem, that doesn't mean we all have access to the same options to reduce it. For example, most of the strategies I've seen require pushing for low-carbon electricity, but while the average person can control (to some degree) the amount of electricity they use, they have almost zero say in how it gets generated.

>>8509698
>and natural mechanisms caused 0.2X amount of cooling.
Pretty sure the 20% cooling is our sulfur and particulate emissions

Global warming isn't the only problem with having lots of CO2 BTW, there's also the fact the ocean is getting more acidic, which has potentially massive implications for the ecosystem.

>>8505916
>What we see is that the Earth swings between glacial and interglacial periods. Glacial periods end quickly and begin slowly. This is because they end when the orbital eccentricity of the Earth causes it to receive more solar radiation, which evaporates CO2 and water vapor from the oceans, which warm the Earth further via the greenhouse effect, creating a positive feedback loop which rapidly warms the Earth

> positive feedback loop which rapidly warms the Earth
> positive feedback loop
Which would lead to runaway warming.

And there should be a non-linear increase in warming after the CO2 uptick. Its not there.

>>8505970
>Claim 2
Trying to rewrite Hansen huh? Look at his actual graph, pic related.

Scenario A, an increase in the rate of anthropogenic CO2 flux -- what actually happened.
Scenario C, a sharp decrease in anthropogenic CO2 flux, didn't happen.

The data clearly fit scenario C, falsifying Hansen.

>>8506003
>There is no reason to reject previous ocean heat data and ARGO buoys suffer from many of the same issues as
> ARGO buoys suffer from many of the same issues as
Which means the data is untrustworthy. You said it yourself.

>nb4 author is evil denier.
Ad hominem doesn't count.

>>8506024
>Skeptic Claim 4: The Tropospheric Hotspot is the most "prominent" feature of climatological theory and its missing

>This one is a bit more nuanced, so read up on why it's false here: http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf
Translation: we'll try to fudge are way out of it.

The models placed the majority (about 70%) of the purported positive feedback as water vapor in the upper troposphere (lower troposphere increase is just heat transport from the Earth's surface.)

This was a big part of the theory until it failed miserably. So to keep the faith, its failure (in about 2001) marks the turning point where Climate Change Science became Climate Change Pseudo-Science.

>>8506024
>The sole source of this claim is a single flawed paper which contradicts essentially every other study on the same question and has been debunked numerous times: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

You conveniently ignored the follow-up paper, Lindzen, Choi 2011. This takes care of the problems from the 2009 paper. Unless you want to be unfalsifiable; or sloppy. Yeah, sloppy like a paper I read which doesn't account for the delay between the effect of incoming radiation and the change in outgoing. They set it to 0 months! And then surprise got the desired effect, despite a correlation of almost 0.

But what you're really talking about is the "debunking" of Lindzen and Choi by claiming that you can not properly measure what is going in radiatively while distinguishing it from the time lagged radiative change; what is going out. This, (very convenient) assertion renders all arguments about "radiative balance" moot. Helping to maintain Climate "Science" as an unfalsifiable belief system.

I

>>8509858
>> positive feedback loop
>Which would lead to runaway warming.
not necessarily

>>8509891
That is what the IPCC models so far have claimed though....
I recall something about water vapour being involved, I'd have to dig through hard copy to find it, but I'm enjoying seeing you all discussing this so far.

>>8509797
>I mean, you're dead wrong about glaciation increasing over geologic history; there's no clear trend
Wut?
Please clarify the current theories regarding earths creation and aging process for me then please.
Are you saying it magically appeared with polar caps and an atmosphere with set CO2 levels and if these levels deviate a tax should be implemented to fix it?

>>8509106
Only Brainlet here is you if you cant recognize that /pol/acks use the same debunked arguments that were derived by skeptics

>>8509827
>In this particular case, step zero is to stop increasing the rate we're piping fuel onto the fire.
This is some epic ignorance. If you actually think all fossil fuels located will not be used by mankind you are implying an end to mankind. Get back to reality, they will be used if not by you that's fine, but by someone else then, the question is what bureaucratic parasitic bodies will be attached to that consumption. Will they decide who gets them and who doesn't? You are an enabler of very scary things.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/

What do you AGW people have to say about this? Stumped, eh?

>>8509922
>(((breitbart)))
Oh wow an unusual spike, that surely destroys the assertion of a long term trend. Do some research brainlet

>>8509922
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/12/01/earths-temperature-has-not-plunged-at-record-clip-and-nation-wide-record-cold-not-coming/?utm_term=.c0f6f1582212

>>8506024
>The sole source of this claim is a single flawed paper
Hardly the only skeptical paper to look at the radiative balance. Hint: think clouds instead of CO2

Allan, Richard P. "Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere." Meteorological Applications 18.3 (2011): 324-333.
“Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of − 21 Wm−2.”

Kauppinen, Jyrki, Jorma Heinonen, and Pekka Malmi. "Influence of relative humidity and clouds on the global mean surface temperature." Energy & Environment 25.2 (2014): 389-399.
“We will show that changes of relative humidity or low cloud cover explain the major changes in the global mean temperature. We will present the evidence of this argument using the observed relative humidity between years 1970 and 2011 and the observed low cloud cover between years 1983 and 2008. One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively. In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change.”

>>8509934
>One percent increase in relative humidity or in low cloud cover decreases the temperature by 0.15 °C and 0.11 °C, respectively
Global humidity is INCREASING and global cloud coverage is DECREASING,yet, the temperature is INCREASING. Wow, its almost like those papers fail to explain the global increase in temperature!
>"In the time periods mentioned before the contribution of the CO2 increase was less than 10% to the total temperature change"
[Citation needed] because apparantly they haven't been paying attention

>>8509948
>Global humidity is INCREASING
Damn you're funny.

>>8509948
>cloud coverage is DECREASING
Well since there are far fewer industrial smokestacks pumping out soot these days, there are less cloud nuclei around which humidity can condense.

>>8509954
:^)
>>8509958
NOT SO FAST my friend!
The argument is that low cloud coverage decreases temperature. However that's not happening, is it?

>>8509959
Don't look at me I'm not the guy with the charts & graphs. I was merely making an observation about the cloud cover.

...not to mention that cloud coverage decreasing temperature can easily be disproven by visiting the desert at night.

>>8509964
...Are you seriously referencing deserts as indicative of global climate

>>8509967
I am referencing that lack of cloud cover does not cause surface warming. Or did you forget how to read effectively when doing your fancy environmental electives?

>>8509969
>Getting mad
>Not even reading the studies
wew lad, the assertion is that low cloud coverage decreases temperature you brainlet.

>>8509964
To clarify: cloud cover only causes surface cooling if it happens in the daytime. Cloud cover at night acts as a blanket to retain heat.

...which is why I said it could be "disproven by visiting the desert AT NIGHT", when temperatures rapidly drop to near-freezing.

>>8509970
>the assertion is that low cloud coverage decreases temperature
Your assertion, not mine, nor one I give a crap about.

>brainlet
Nice insult, now go back to /pol/.

>>8509971
Using one biome as an example doesn't prove a theory at all about global climate.

>>8509972
>Your assertion, not mine, nor one I give a crap about.
Don't jump into conversations then if you have no idea what you're doing then brainlet
>now go back to /pol/
You opened the door, now go back and close it

>>8509973
It does show that cloud cover does not automatically mean temperatures drop.

>>8509975
>brainlet
>"no you're from pol not me"

I swear, things get worse every year around here.

>>8509983
>It does show that cloud cover does not automatically mean temperatures drop.
Yes but you're not paying attention to the global situation in regards to them. Think anon, think!
>I swear, things get worse every year around here.
You coming here exclusively to argue your hugbox arguments from /pol/ doesn't mean you're from here

>>8509984
If you'd rather I point out that daytime could cover in a temperate environment reflects solar heat, yes that's true.

But that same cloud cover at night will retain heat. You seem to be oversimplifying.

>You coming here exclusively to argue your hugbox arguments from /pol/ doesn't mean you're from here

I'm a regular visitor, and infrequent contributor to /sci/. I rarely visit /pol/ and only when there are actual global events being discussed that are newsworthy. The fact you seem to have mistaken me for the OP or someone else and are automatically attacking me as an interloper by trying to affix your boogyman's identity to me is a tragic sign that modern universities are not what they once were.

>>8509984
>>8509997

Oh, I forgot to add:

"Think, brainlet, think!!!"

There, do I fit into your super secret /sci/ club now?

>>8509997
Look, you can point out all those anecdotes you want, but I'm not interesting in entertaining your mental exercises. I didn't go to school for simple philosophies. You want to argue science, hit the journals or present your own articles and research you've done.
>The fact you seem to have mistaken me for the OP or someone else and are automatically attacking me as an interloper by trying to affix your boogyman's identity to me is a tragic sign that modern universities are not what they once were
Once again, you can claim you're not there but you accusing me of being some brainwashed student is indicative of your stance on things here and the people here. Have you done research on climate science articles or have you merely read popsci and news articles about what some BA or less educated person says in a dumbed down for 8th graders wording?

>>8510007
Look when you want to act like an anti-intellectual you're going to be treated like one

>>8509858
>Which would lead to runaway warming.
No, solar forcing is cyclical so the feedback loop is eventually stopped by the same factors that started it.

>And there should be a non-linear increase in warming after the CO2 uptick. Its not there.
Why nonlinear? Temperature increases after CO2 increases, and CO2 increases after temperature increases. You can't separate one from the other with such a graph.

>>8509862
>Trying to rewrite Hansen huh?
Did you even read what I wrote before you replied? Hansen overestimated climate sensitivity, his was 4 degrees C. If he had had the modern estimate of sensitivity, 3 degrees C, then his projection would be correct.

>Scenario A, an increase in the rate of anthropogenic CO2 flux -- what actually happened.
>Scenario C, a sharp decrease in anthropogenic CO2 flux, didn't happen.
>The data clearly fit scenario C, falsifying Hansen.
That doesn't even respond to my main point and it's still wrong. The scenarios did not simply describe CO2 emissions but all greenhouse gas emissions (and volcanic eruptions). None of them accurately describe what happened with each emission, but scenario B is the closest in terms of raw summed forcings.

>>8509863
>Which means the data is untrustworthy.
No, it means the data aren't perfect. No data are perfect. Next time you reply, use your brain instead of trying to get these dumb gotcha moments.

>>8509997
Well the world is a business and has been for some time now. The most frightening aspect of AGW is how quickly it went from a curiosity to strict dogma and I assume is being religiously dumped on grade schoolers right up to post secondary. Considering the vast number of variables, the enormous data sets, the questionable simulations and suspect "science" it is relentlessly pushed as fact not theory. Even the theory of evolution is evolving after several centuries. This is a huge red flag in my opinion and the only conclusion one can draw from it is it is a means to an end and that end became quickly apparent. Global taxation on the byproduct of spent fossil fuels. This is the end product of the science of AGW. It really makes you think!

>>8510008
I pointed out a single fact. And you can decry it as an anecdote, but it remains a fact.

You attacked me, now you're acting like one of the idiots on/pol/ do. Except that you have an opposing viewpoint to what most of them would have, you'd fit right in with those retards.

Why should I point you to anything I've written?

>>8510009
>act like an anti-intellectual
...I'm acting like an anti-intellectual by positing one fact?

And here I thought this page was for scientists.... obviously not.

>>8510014
>I pointed out a single fact. And you can decry it as an anecdote, but it remains a fact.
Yes, and it does nothing for the conversation at hand
>You attacked me, now you're acting like one of the idiots on/pol/ do. Except that you have an opposing viewpoint to what most of them would have, you'd fit right in with those retards.
I held off until you insulted my education. Don't play the victim card here.
>Why should I point you to anything I've written?
I somehow doubt you even went beyond undergraduate studies based on your simple arguments
>...I'm acting like an anti-intellectual by positing one fact?
You're acting like an anti-intellectual for going off on indoctrination and insulting those who actually went to school
>And here I thought this page was for scientists.... obviously not.
Well if you consider yourself a scientist then it obviously isn't

>>8509858
>positive feedback loop
>Which would lead to runaway warming.
That's not how feedback works.

>>8509903
>That is what the IPCC models so far have claimed though
No, it's not.

>>8509867
>Translation: we'll try to fudge are way out of it.
It never was a prediction.
You can't make shit up, and then pretend it was a failed prediction.

>>8509934
Are you actually citing fucking E&E?
Just stop.
Please.

>>8509919
>If you actually think all fossil fuels located will not be used by mankind you are implying an end to mankind.
What the fuck?

>You are an enabler of very scary things.
Says the advocate for unlimited consumption.

>>8510013
>The most frightening aspect of AGW is how quickly it went from a curiosity to strict dogma
Uh, it's really not been all that quick. People started seriously proposing AGW a long time ago, and it's not really fair to blame scientists for other people being slow to listen to their warnings.

>Considering the vast number of variables, the enormous data sets, the questionable simulations and suspect "science" it is relentlessly pushed as fact not theory.
What are you even trying to say, "I don't understand it so it's not real"?
Also, "pushed as fact not theory" sounds like something a fucking creationist would claim. Look up what a "theory" is.

>>8510014
>I pointed out a single fact. And you can decry it as an anecdote, but it remains a fact.
Are you for real?

>>8510013
>I don't understand what a theory is: the post

>>8510017
>it does nothing for the conversation at hand
Hang on, wasn't you argument that cloud coverage has an effect on temperature?

>you insulted my education
Where exactly did I do that? Unless you're pointing to me criticising modern Universities, in which case you were obviously triggered, in which case I could care less.

>going off on indoctrination
Again, where have I done that?
The benefit of anonymity is that I can say anything here. The downside is that educated fools like you assume everyone who is not you posting is the same person. Hence you assume me to be the original poster or the person you were arguing against before I rocked up with my $0.02.

>you consider yourself a scientist
And you do?

Frankly, you are tilting at windmills.

Must I list my posts in this sub?

Fine.

>>8510014
>>8510007
>>8509997
>>8509983
>>8509972
>>8509969
>>8509964
>>8509958


...insofar as your personal attack on me goes, I can now very well understand why climate scientists get so little respect. You reacted with unbridled hostility to one simple observation of fact- that cloud cover does not automatically mean either cooling or heating will ensue every time.

>>8510027
You're getting mad and you didn't pay attention. See me after class because I'm not going to repeat what I said in the lecture.

>>8505819
Science lies! Just like they say it takes millions of years for a red giant to turn into a white dwarf even though Egyptian Hieroglyphs from 2000 years ago call it red. Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated Sirius was red. Seneca described Sirius as "redder than Mars." Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of six red stars in 150 A.D.

Today, sirius, the is a white star. Obviously this is just one case where if you do your research you will realize that science, as it related to big things. The shape of the earth, bollocks. Space existing, bollocks. the sun being large and far away, bollocks. Do you own research and wake up to the truth. The truth will set you free.

>>8510033
>lecture

[insert laughing picture here]

If anything, people like you are the reason climate science is not taken seriously.
Instead of laying out the argument you attack the person, even when that person was not arguing against you in the first place.

>>8510039
Climate science is taken seriously, your rant about some fact you managed to regurgitate and your opinions on modern education isn't.

>>8509863
>nb4 author is evil denier.
Author is cherrypicking data. More importantly, author is lying about the Hansen 2005 paper by pretending that the mean of his hindcasting models is somehow a prediction of the future.

>>8510043
People like you is why anti-intellectualism exists in the first place. You still cannot stop trying to insult me in your posts.

>>8510046
Maybe people are insulting you for a reason.

>>8510049
>people
Just the one person, because he disliked my statement regarding cloud cover.
Apparently pointing out that cloud cover does not have a clear effect regarding heating or cooling gets things metaphorically thrown at you.

If you feel the need to insult someone for pointing out that one of the pillars holding up your argument doesn't, then maybe your argument is bad to begin with.

>>8510034
Is this the introduction to the next bioshock game?

>>8509867
>The models placed the majority (about 70%) of the purported positive feedback as water vapor in the upper troposphere (lower troposphere increase is just heat transport from the Earth's surface.)
And the models turned out to be correct:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=A6E5FAA29C76F0716A448F0CDEDF7DEF.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org

>>8509873
>You conveniently ignored the follow-up paper, Lindzen, Choi 2011.
The irony of course being that the page I posted DOES address the 2011 paper. It appears you conveniently ignore what's actually written in the posts you respond to and then make a fool of yourself.

>But what you're really talking about is the "debunking" of Lindzen and Choi by claiming that you can not properly measure what is going in radiatively while distinguishing it from the time lagged radiative change; what is going out.
Actually the point is that calculating it that way is not informative because the result is wholly dependent on arbitrary start and end points. What is your argument that this is not arbitrary?

>This, (very convenient) assertion renders all arguments about "radiative balance" moot.
No it doesn't, because there are a variety of methods for calculating outgoing radiation: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL042314/abstract

It's very easy to argue with deniers when they make such demonstrably false assertions.

>>8509841
No, I think it's mostly natural absorption of CO2 by plantlife. Cooling emissions are included in the manmade 120% warming.

Why do some climate-change sceptics take everything so personally? Surely not every one of them here is an oil compnay CEO.

Even ignoring climate change, burning fossil fules creates many hazardous externalities that need to be controled unless you'd like every town looking like pic related.

Yes, OP, Global Warming isn't real and was made up by the Chinese, the earth is flat and is only 10,000 years old, dinosaurs co-existed with humans and still exist in the jungle, evolution is a lie with no evidence, the scary Jews are conspiring everything wrong in the world, and if you believe hard enough with a tiny pinch of magic all of your dreams will come true.

>>8509934
>Hardly the only skeptical paper to look at the radiative balance.

>Hint: think clouds instead of CO2
Why not both? Why not all factors affecting the climate?

>Allan, Richard P. "Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere." Meteorological Applications 18.3 (2011): 324-333.
Yeah this doesn't measure the radiative balance, just the effect of clouds. Nice reading comprehension buddy.

>Energy & Environment
LOL

>>8510078

At this point they're just idiots anon.

If you doubt the models that are being presented fine, fair enough. But there is historical and tangible evidence man-made influence on the climate has occurred unless now we've gotten to the point where the Oklahoma dust bowl is the Ancient Eygpt equivalent of ayy lamo conspiracy theory and that the Chinese are purposely choking themselves to death all for the sake of """tricking""" masses into believing scientists.

>>8510078
>Even ignoring climate change, burning fossil fules creates many hazardous externalities
This argument drives me nuts because of the extreme ignorance exhibited.
Fossil fuels are critical to modern life, get with the program, you are living in the fucking oil age. If you have a problem with modern industry address that specific problem, if you have a problem with Beijing address that while typing on your Chinese keyboard. This seems to be the fall back argument of every AGW cultist - welp even if it's wrong it can't hurt - but it does hurt. Feeding and engorging a parasitic entity such as the UN, indoctrinating children with lies and propaganda masquerading as science, getting side tracked by a red herring instead of addressing real problems with real solutions. A carbon tax solves nothing while creating more problems especially for the working class which I assume is you!
Adding an extra tax burden to critical and depleting resources is a recipe for a hard ride made even harder from here on out.

Put it this way, you feel fairly intelligent yourself right? And yet you want to hand control of future problems real or imagined over to gigantic bureaucratic entities to solve? Wew, read more history to see what happens when you surrender your own decision making abilities to "higher powers" for fear of losing control of a situation and the promise of a solution. The first thing you will lose is control of the situation and the last thing you will ever see is a solution. The fossil fuels will be spent, with or without you.

>>8510116
>a bloo bloo UN bloo bloo cult bloo bloo taxes bloo bloo New World Order a bloo bloo

Look at all these scientific arguments.

/pol/ please go

>>8509909
the Earth has oscillated between "greenhouse"/"hothouse" (no ice sheets) and "icehouse" (polar ice sheets, alternating glacial and interglacial episodes) states. We are currently in icehouse conditions, albeit in an interglacial time period.
The current icehouse episode is actually FAR MILDER than parts of the Huronian and Cryogenian icehouse eras (back in the Proterozoic) when ice sheets reached the tropics in what is known as "Snowball Earth". Transitions between the two states are very infrequent and seem to be driven by changes in (surprise surprise) atmospheric composition, including CO2. (This is not to be confused with ice ages, which are simply glacial and interglacial intervals controlled mostly by Milankovitch variation.)

If you can't understand this, there's little hope for you.

>>8510116
They are only critical because of what the petroleum industry has done. There's a reason we don't have ideal mass transit systems in the US, and the petroleum industry in a major contribution to it. They wanted everyone driving cars, relying on their products to achieve it, compare our mass transit to Europe and Asia and it's truly pathetic, and the petroleum lobby has a lot to do with that. The industry still wields immense lobbying power in the US government, especially among conservatives who take a lot of money from them. Companies like Exxon have actively funded anti-science propaganda for decades, despite knowing there was a link between CO2 emissions and global warming by their own research. Look up their links to groups like the Global Climate Coalition, or the George C. Marshall Institute. They are using the same exact tactics that the Tobacco industry used when combating scientific studies on the health implications of cigarette smoking. But surely it's not companies like Exxon indoctrinating people like you with their propaganda, no? There's no way a multi-trillion dollar industry that serves as the backbone to many economies worldwide has no benefit from spreading climate disinformation, right? No, your conspiracies focus on entities like the UN, or the "green industry."

The vast majority of climate change denialist material comes people funded by or a part of these think tanks:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/60/3/276

The petroleum industry in Louisiana, where I live, has decimated our coastline. They have dredged thousands of canals on our coastline for quicker transportation of oil, which allows saltwater intrusion, storm surge erosion and other negative impacts that accelerate the loss of our coastline. In fact, the vast majority of coastal wetland loss we experience in Louisiana is directly correlated to the petroleum industry here. Not to mention disastrous oil spills like Deepwater Horizon which fucked up our coast dramatically.

>>8510156
What is peer review and how does it affect what you get to read?

>>8510116
It's funny how you nut jobs always use higher taxes as a reason for not doing anything about climate change, while failing to realize that not doing anything is going to cost way, way more in the long run. Your taxes are going up either way. How soon we act will determine just how much.

>>8510184
>What is peer review
Peer review by prestigious science journals is a marketing device and has little to do with the validity of what is published. It is essentially a confidence game targeting the authoritarian follower personality type. No one counts the silent retractions and the money that changes hands in this anonymous and intransparent scheme.
>how does it affect what you get to read?
It follows what the journal's editors think the readership believes in and is expected to buy. If most believe in the same crap, that crap will be published because it sells best.

>>8510450
Boring.

>>8510283
You can act to mitigate environmental destruction and above all, progressive toxification. You cannot regulate climate. Confounding these issues is a tried and tested tool of deception. This thread is full of examples. Whenever you read "denier" you know you've spotted such a case.

>>8510493
>You cannot regulate climate.
Why not? We can clearly trigger warming by adding CO2, so why wouldn't not adding CO2 slow the rate of warming?

>Confounding these issues is a tried and tested tool of deception.
Which is...?

>Whenever you read "denier" you know you've spotted such a case.
Dismissing the work of scientists just because it doesn't conform to your political beliefs makes you a denier. That's not a deception, that's just what the word "denial" means.

>>8510450
>No one counts the silent retractions
http://retractionwatch.com/
fag

>>8510184
>>8510450
>all this evidence disagrees with me, so I'll just accuse the entire scientific community of faking it without providing any evidence for it.
typical denier mindset. if the evidence disagrees with your unfalsifiable dogma, you just say it's all fraudulent anyway and dismiss it like a good little useful idiot.

>Ok /sci/ so I'm admittedly a /pol/lack
aaaand stopped reading there. Nothing good will come of this thread because /pol/tards don't argue in good faith and genuinely want to have their opinions changed, they just want to shitfling until everyone is as disgusting as they are.

sage this shit if you actually like /sci/

>>8510821
genuinely don't want*

sage still

>>8510156
>muh-lankvitch cycles
Nice try faggot, but those entail change over intervals of time too long to account for the last 70+ years of climate observations

>>8511194
um, I was explaining to that denier how the slow cooling of the Earth's interior doesn't actually control change in surface temperatures.
reading comprehension is key. :^)

>>8511228
You're right. I've become what I set out to fight. I'm leaving sci until I have the patience to return.