/sci/ - Science & Math

Pretty sure it's just two or three trolls making the 24/7 bait threads.

>>9295396
>Things I just made up

>>9295405
After you've been on various chans for a while it's easy to see that most of the threads are created by either a few shills or bots using templates. It's so repetitive that it's become massively boring. Browsing a chan has become an exercise in detecting posts by anyone who isn't a shill or a bot. Pretty soon the shills and bots will all just be talking to each other because everyone else left out of boredom.

>>9295396
Majority of users cant prove climate change models are accurate to a small degree of error
always off by such a margin i could park a hummer in
Being this inaccurate at any other job would get you fired.

>>9295396
the anonymity of this site pulls in a disproportional amount of mental conspiracy nut zit poppers

>>9295396
>science forum
>caring about beliefs

>>9295441
>always off by such a margin i could park a hummer in
At least try and be convincing when you lie.

Climate change is brainlet science. It's a way for brainlets to feel scientific while regurgitating "expert opinion" and avoiding anything that requires math.

>>9296119
And here I thought it was a way to keep us from destroying ourselves.

>>9296133
you were wrong. you can go back to tumblr now

>>9295811
beliefs are a part of reality and thus can be studied scientifically
agree/disagree?

>>9296145
>feeling science

>>9295441
>climate science relies solely on models

>>9295396
Neither do I """"""believe"""""" in it nor do I care.

>>9295396
but there is no evidence for man-made climate change

>>9295436
This. There's a shit load of bot posting. You can use 4chan's built in post filter for most of them at least. I usually just hide the threads I want to follow in catalog and use the hidden catalog instead of the normal catalog.

>because everyone else left out of boredom.

That's literally their goal. To render 4chan unusable.

>>9296145
Good luck doing maths basing on "this feels right"

>>9295396
Here's a tip: do not take the post of any frogtard seriously.

>science forum
>seriously discussing the flat earth

>>9295396

Here's how you know the climate change issue is politically tainted bullshit...

REAL ISSUE:
>I think something deadly is occurring
>I don't believe you
>Well, we need to discuss and debate this publicly, because I'm positive this shit is deadly...you bring your data, I'll bring mine
>I can agree to that

POLITICAL ISSUE:
>I think something deadly is occurring
>I don't believe you
>STUPID CAVEMAN PIECE OF SHIT REEEEE...!1!! HEY EVERYBODY...TELL HIM WHAT A FAGGOT HE IS! ESPECIALLY YOU CELEBRITIES!

I'm getting really sick of this shitty buzzword "climate change". If people would use natural resources wisely, reponsibly, and modestly, and would simply not splurge them, we wouldn't even have any need for most of this fruitless debate. The craze goes up to the point where the administration wants people to drive electric cars when the electricity comes from coal power. Nothing is thought out anymore.

>>9296723
Maybe if all the climate change deniers weren't certifiable retards people wouldn't act like they were retards.

Googling shit like "the sun is the cause of climate change" then repeating the stupid shit you read on the breitbart article that comes up doesn't make you smart it makes you an idiot.

The difference between the people who read the nyt article that says climate change is real and you is the people who read the nyt article don't try to make outrageous claims that they have no comprehension of. They just say let's stop burning coal it's not only bad for the environment but it's also bad for us! You just say COAL!!!! Bring back jawwwwbbbbbbbbs.

>>9296757
Tesla probably spends 90% of their revenue shilling on reddit and the rest of the web.

There's bs on both sides. The corporations, those darn corporations, would like you to believe you have nothing to worry about. Generally you can trust that whatever corporations are saying, the opposite must be true

However, climatologists are full of it as well, trying to scare us into thinking the world would end 20 years ago. And they place their instruments strategically to fudge the statistics.

So frankly my dear I don't give a damn. If this world dies it deserves to die

climate change is an exercise in the hubris of man. Who, mistakenly, believes that they alone can both destroy, and heal, an entire planet. When it the will of God. As proven by the king who passed a law to keep the tide from coming in. They pay dearly for these beliefs, as they delve deeper into their apocalyptic cult, governments eventually execute them for treason like women on waves.

>>9295436
Ice cream? God I love ice cream!

*yawn* I'm sleepy. Climate change? Not real. It's been debunked by news networks like CNN and other totally not fake news networks. Haha. Lets stop talking about this, it's crazy man.

>>9296757
>drive electric cars when the electricity comes from coal power
it's still a massive saving because converting the coal energy to electric is way more efficient if you do it all at once compared with doing it many times within each vehicle

>>9296782
>However, climatologists are full of it as well, trying to scare us into thinking the world would end 20 years ago. And they place their instruments strategically to fudge the statistics.
Can you give me an example of a climatologist doing either? Because you're full of shit.

>>9296891
Al Gore and his team

>>9296864
that depends on so many factors, it can tilt easily

one degree celsius in hundred and ten years, you people know what, I don't give a shit for that

>>9296772

>ask people to sacrifice their livelihoods and futures for your projections
>they demand to know the details
>PISS OFF, PEONS. BRAINLETS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>oddly enough, they decide you're full of shit
>now you're crying and raging
>WHY WON'T THEY LISTEN?!!

kek

>>9296908
>Al Gore
>climatologist
Yeah you're full of shit.

>>9296963
his team was you moron. he was literally a scientist too. You're just a foul-mouthed shill, whose unaware that there is no formal definition of the term.

Those are just /pol/ troll threads. That board is full of conspiracy theorists that hate reality, and since science is the method that attempts to describe reality they hate science the most.

>>9296944
>ask people to sacrifice their livelihoods and futures for your projections
Nice alarmism

>they demand to know the details
>PISS OFF, PEONS. BRAINLETS WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
Global warming is one of the most widely explained theories in science, you delusional nut. If you don't want to read the scientific papers you can read wikipedia or any number of layman explanations. You're just spouting nonsense opposite to reality.

>>9296968
>you can read wikipedia
/sci/ is this stupid, poor, and pathetic

but there is some grain of truth in it

I'm a biologist and I could explain to a smoker why he will get cancer and I could easily debunk all his ridiculous or ignorant claims. And I explain it to him even in easy words calm and polite.

But when I ask climate change alarmists for stuff like heat islands or how 100 year old data is still valid to be fit with modern measurements, they turn angry or hateful or look at me like "you are destroying our planet you evil asshole liar"

It's not that I'm a environmental polluter, not in any way, I actually try to avoid trash, try to buy ecological friendly goods, dont do unnecessary car rides, dont fly much, etc, etc. But seems to me, the "good old protecting the environment", which is totally logical to me, is no longer important for those climate people. All they want to do is scream high pitch and ban and accuse.

>>9295396

Its an epistemic problem. Everything you know about climate science is something you heard.

Lets look at each claim philosophically:
> the earth is warming.
This is hard to tell, but certainly possible, with careful measurement and unbiased sampling.
> the earth will continue warming and some natural process won't adjust.
The earth is very good at regulating its temperature and processes, this seems difficult to know.
> Earth's warming is caused by CO2.
Establishing casual relationships beyond statistical correlations is very difficult.
> Earth's warming will be bad.
Impossible to know this. Too many variables like when biologist try and balance some animal in an ecology.
> We can stop Earth's warming be mediating certain activities.
How do we know this?
Nothing involving so many variables is so cut and dry which is why economists can't predict anything, geologists can't agree on anything, etc. There are probably only a handful of people in the world with enough first hand knowledge to actually have an informed opinion that wasn't just someones word for it.


> the earth is warming and is caused by CO2.
This i

>>9296964
>his team was you moron.
Who is on this supposed team and which climatologist told Gore to say that the world would end? Where are the climatologists who place instruments in order to fudge the data? Is it really so hard to actually back up your retarded claims with an example?

>>9296971
>Claims climatology is not being explained
>Gets rekt
>MUH WIKIPEDIA

>>9296989
>But when I ask climate change alarmists for stuff like heat islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>or how 100 year old data is still valid to be fit with modern measurements
Why would it be invalid? The reason we don't go back farther is because the instrumental data is either not standardized enough or does not have a wide enough spread to reproduce global temperatures.

I find it hard to believe that such simple questions have never been answered wit anything but anger. It seems you are just ignoring the real answers and beating straw men.

>>9296772
Way to prove his strawman right, I guess.

>>9297004
>the earth will continue warming and some natural process won't adjust.
>The earth is very good at regulating its temperature and processes, this seems difficult to know.
This is backwards logic. The temperature that the Earth is usually at is maintained because the factors which drive the climate did not rapidly change. If they rapidly change, then the climate rapidly changes. There is nothing to regulate our rapid emissions of greenhouse gasses except for ourselves. If you have an understanding of the climate that says otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

>Earth's warming is caused by CO2.
>Establishing casual relationships beyond statistical correlations is very difficult.
The greenhouse effect is fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics. You don't appear to have a clue about what you're "thinking" about.

>Earth's warming will be bad.
>Impossible to know this. Too many variables like when biologist try and balance some animal in an ecology.
This doesn't respond to what climatologists argue, which is that warming will have certain effects like increasing sea levels, increasing drought, ocean acidification, extreme weather, etc and these effects are mostly bad. Why is it impossible to know the effects of rapidly warming the Earth?

>We can stop Earth's warming be mediating certain activities.
>How do we know this?
Because we know which factors drive the climate at a global scale over such time frames.

>Nothing involving so many variables is so cut and dry which is why economists can't predict anything, geologists can't agree on anything, etc.
Nothing? So we don't understand anything about complex systems? Do you actually believe this? This entire post seems to deny that science exists and works.

>>9297060
>Why would it be invalid?
if you don't know any possible answer yourself, then you better don't talk about climate

>>9297060
>berkeley

has the same finding been reproduced?
>the effect is there, but is has no impact
again this is not logical

>>9297097
>if you don't know any possible answer yourself
I just said why older measurements would be invalid, moron. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

>>9297111
yet we use older measurements, even in your beloved berkely thing they boast to use data from back as the 1800s

and the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement

>>9297111
>moron
>hypocrisy
this is why I dont believe the climate people. as soon as you start calling other people names, it makes you implausible

>>9297107
>has the same finding been reproduced?
There are a large amount of papers showing the UHI is localized and thus removed by homogenization. See page 243-245:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

>>9297114
>yet we use older measurements,
Are you incapable of following simple lines of argument? Older data is used only to the extend that it is sufficiently standardized and global. Now, I'll ask again, how is the data invalid?

>and the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement
It is most prominent in cities, that's why it's called the Urban Heat Island effect. But I would like to see the research showing that it exists everywhere rural and effects the trend. I'll wait.

>>9297121
>wants me to read endless wiki and ipcc articles when I'm tired like a donkey

listen man, why dont you show me a land based temperature measurement station, that is queryied since 110 years constantly and regularly, and that is rural, and that had zero changes in surrounding pavement and stock of trees around it, and post all its dataloggers raw data?
this board is full of mathemagicians that will work on the data.

>>9297119
As soon as you complain about insults on 4chan and ignore the content of my post, I know you're arguing in bad faith. Thanks for the heads up.

>>9297133
no. you ignored totally my point and even said you had used it yourself.

>>9297132
>Endless
>Not even two pages
Anytime you want to admit you have no argument that's fine, just don't exaggerate everything so that you can have a fake tantrum and run away. It's laughable how you demand something, then are given it, then complain that you were given what you asked for and move the goalposts.

>why dont you show me a land based temperature measurement station, that is queryied since 110 years constantly and regularly, and that is rural, and that had zero changes in surrounding pavement and stock of trees around it, and post all its dataloggers raw data?
Why don't you first explain how adjustments to temperature data do not address this? Since you don't appear to have the slightest clue what you're talking about, try starting with this:

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

>>9297131
have you ever made temperature measurements in rural surroundings? i did. even mowing gives you 2 degrees celsius.

>>9297138
Your point was that I could not think of ways in which older temperature data could be flawed when in the sentence directly after the one you quoted I gave two. So how exactly did I ignore your point? Your point was invalidated by the post you replied to.

Instead of responding to this and actually explaining why you think the temperature data from the 1850s is flawed, you complained about me insulting you and claimed this reflected on my argument. You argue like a child. I'm still waiting for a relevant response.

>>9297143
>data adjustment
yeah go on, if you do this with blood cells, your patient dies

>>9297146
>have you ever made temperature measurements in rural surroundings? i did. even mowing gives you 2 degrees celsius.
This doesn't respond to the post you're replying to, where is the evidence of UHI in rural areas effecting the national or global trend?

For a response to other temperature station effects, see >>9297143

>>9297147
you insulted me and then you say I'M the child?
you sure got nerves.

>>9297150
Do you really think this post had any value in supporting your position?

>>9297154
>you insulted me and then you say I'M the child?
Yes. If you don't understand why the explanation is right there in the post. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

>>9295442
> A scientific theory could only be false if there was a big conspiracy behind it.
Don't you ever get tired of babbling your Leftest memes?

>>9297153
the evidence is clear.
every place of measurement that is frequently queried, is changed, architectonically, vegetatively, cutting down one fucking tree in the neighborhood of the weather station could create not only the one degree over 100 years, but even more. the longer used the apparatus, the bigger it's errors, if it is replaced, it has a new error, yadayadayada.

>>9297158
listen anon, you can go on calling people names on the internet and pasting articles without having your own ideas, but you wont become a convincing partner in an argument

>>9297158
>Do you really think this post had any value in supporting your position?
it's enough if it weakens yours
my point was already proven since an hour or so

>>9297162
Speculation is not evidence. For example, evidence would be a project which analyzes temperature stations for micro-site biases and then compares the best sited stations to all the data. Let's try googling for microsite analysis (I know it's very hard to open google and look for evidence to support your position, so I'll do it for you). Oh look, here's a study that did that:

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

And yes, it finds a clear bias in the temperature stations!

Oh wait, it seems that it's a slight cooling bias. Oh well I guess it supports the exact opposite of what you claim... So I can see why someone would not even try to look for evidence when it keeps proving the opposite of what they're trying to claim.

>>9295396
Reddit plz go

>>9297162
>the evidence is clear.
Asserting that evidence exists isn't the same as presenting it.

>every place of measurement that is frequently queried, is changed, architectonically, vegetatively, cutting down one fucking tree in the neighborhood of the weather station could create not only the one degree over 100 years...
It's a good thing no-one relies on a single measuring station then, isn't it?

Your argument seems to boil down to "I don't trust that climatologists know how to do their jobs, because I don't know how to do it either".

>>9297168
>it's enough if it weakens yours
It doesn't. "BUT AJUSTMIUNTS!" is probably the least convincing response you could possibly have made.

>my point was already proven since an hour or so
No.

>>9297167
I don't see how insulting you for spouting nonsense and not having my own ideas is a bad thing in a discussion about scientific facts. Being polite and original (which you aren't) doesn't help you if you're simply wrong about what you're talking about.

>>9295396
>majority of users don't believe in man-made climate change

Do you have a citation for this claim?

>>9296772
>implying climate change supporters have any comprehension of the claims they make either

>>9296968
>global warming is one of the most explained theories

Try again. There is no central theory for agw. Just wildly inaccurate models saying two things are correlated. I can do the same thing for water consumption vs. Global warming too.

>>9297180
I don't understand how these retards come onto /sci/ to deny well evidenced theories, won't post any scientific evidence to support their claims, get handed everything they want, and yet still claim they have the intellectual high ground. It boggles the mind.

>>9297200
Why do you keep repeating this lie? You know it's false, but you do it anyway.

>Just wildly inaccurate models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>saying two things are correlated.
So you deny the greenhouse effect exists? Because it's a completely causative explanation that is proven directly via fundamental physics, thermodynamics, and measured directly through radiative spectroscopy.

>>9297076
>the greenhouse effect is fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics

Nobody will argue that co2 is good for trapping heat. The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.

At the end of the day, there's no meaningful relationship between the two.

>>9297207
>The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.
These scaling factors are just feedback loops which are as fundamental as the greenhouse effect. So do you deny that warmer oceans release more water vapor and CO2? Because that also need to throw out the explanation for how interglacial warming occurs in addition to AGW. I'm just trying to pinpoint which of the basic scientific facts underlying climatology you deny.

>>9295396
I dunno, count me on the believer side.

>>9297200
>Try again. There is no central theory for agw. Just wildly inaccurate models saying two things are correlated.
That's literally the Greenhouse effect. At least read a Wikipedia article or something before claiming an entire field of science is wrong.

>>9297201
>It boggles the mind.
Really? I'd be far more surprised if they admitted to not having a clue.

>>9297207
>Nobody will argue that co2 is good for trapping heat. The problem is that there's not enough co2 to explain the warming so models use all these crazy scaling factors with bulls hit reasons.
The "crazy scaling factors" are well supported by the climate record.

>>9297206
It's not accurate when it can't predict temperature well year after year. The only thing good about it is that it predicts an overall warming. I can approximate curves with lines too. This failure would be rejected in any other field.

There's solid science that cloud cover also increases temperature. Just because the process is known doesn't mean it's the cause.

We know there's been a large increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution.

We know the CO2 increase is mostly our fault because of the isotope signatures. Plus from just measuring how much CO2 we tend to put out, I'm guessing.

We know that CO2 is invisible to the visible spectrum of light, while it absorbs the infrared spectrum. We know that when the earth absorbs visible light from the sun it reflects it as infrared light, where it is either shot into space or absorbed by something else.

We know that there's a vested interested in maintaining the status quo. There are very large short term financial and political advantages to spreading disinformation and doubt.

>>9297226
>We know
you are a shill

>>9297210
>>9297216
First of all, I reject the data on surface temps. Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.

Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions, it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things. It's just not there.

Compare this with a many body system in mechanics, or any other system which is chaotic. Those things can give incredibly accurate predictions despite the complexity. I don't see it here. The whole field is literally a meme.

>>9297222
>It's not accurate when it can't predict temperature well year after year.
No one is trying to predict temperature year after year. The theory of AGW does not say that the temperature will increase year after year, it says it will increase on the scale of centuries. Once again, you show your ignorance on the topic you're attempting to refute.

>The only thing good about it is that it predicts an overall warming.
That's clearly false as the models predict warming within a certain range, not simply warming. This is because it posits how certain factors drive the climate.

>This failure would be rejected in any other field.
What failure?

>There's solid science that cloud cover also increases temperature.
So surely cloud cover has increased with temperature? No, no it hasn't. Try again.

>Just because the process is known doesn't mean it's the cause.
It's the cause because it explains the warming and no other factors do. If you have an alternative theory I suggest you post it. Otherwise, you're not arguing anything. Just saying it could be wrong when it is clearly well evidenced and unopposed. The Earth could also be flat.

>>9297240
>Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.
According to what analysis?

>Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions
Low relative to what?

>it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things.
Of course the climate is sensitive to many natural factors. But which transient events explain the current long term warming trend? Solar activity has been decreasing for decades while temperature rises. Instead of just speculating, why don't you actually present an opposing argument? Where is your competing model?

>Compare this with a many body system in mechanics, or any other system which is chaotic. Those things can give incredibly accurate predictions despite the complexity.
Some things are too chaotic to predict and some things are not. The climate over a long term, global scale is less chaotic and thus allows us to determine the major factors that drive it. And we have been accurately predicting the trend for several decades, as I've shown you. You aren't arguing honestly.

>>9297240
>First of all, I reject the data on surface temps.
Rejecting the best dataset we have doesn't make your argument seem very credible.

>Interpolation and omission of data prevents us from seeing accurate temperatures.
Raw data is almost always publicly available.

>Secondly, if the model is sensitive to the relatively low emissions, it also needs to be sensitive to other things like transient events, abnormal solar activity, other natural things.
What makes you think that the current emissions rates are low? They're incredibly large compared to natural (net) emissions.

>>9297250
>No one is trying to predict temperature year after year. The theory of AGW does not say that the temperature will increase year after year, it says it will increase on the scale of centuries.
Wrong. No climate model predicts centuries out. The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.

>That's clearly false as the models predict warming within a certain range, not simply warming. This is because it posits how certain factors drive the climate.
Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050. Different models make different predictions which in turn give a range but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.

>What failure?
The failure to accurately predict the trends in temperature. Other than "it's an upward trend", the predictions have failed spectacularly. with more than 100% deviation from observation in some cases. This is unacceptable.

>So surely cloud cover has increased with temperature? No, no it hasn't. Try again.
That's a false implication.

>It's the cause because it explains the warming and no other factors do. If you have an alternative theory I suggest you post it

Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause. Water consumption has increased exponentially as well. i could make a graph with water consumption vs. temperature and come to the same conclusion that global temps are rising.

The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong. There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate. The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before. Just because we are here to see it doesn't mean we're responsible for it.

>>9297280
>i could make a graph with water consumption vs. temperature and come to the same conclusion that global temps are rising.
Yeah but after you make that graph you need to explain what link water consumption and global temperature has. The link between greenhouse gasses and temp is already explained.

>>9297280
>The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.
What? Which papers?

>Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050.
If you read the actual paper, it will say something like "+.5C (+/ 0.1C) by 2050", which is a range.

>but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.
Why? It's not unusual for scientific fields to use a bunch of models with different strengths and weaknesses.
The map is not the terrain etc.

>Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause.
That is literally what that word means.

I think what you're trying to say is "just because their correlated doesn't mean it's a cause", in which case good work?
We have far strong reasons to think that CO2 levels impact surface temperatures than just correlation. AGW makes actual predictions, like stratospheric cooling, a reduction in day/night temperature spread (I think?) and a decrease in outgoing IR.

>The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong.
That's not simpler at all. You'd need to provide other, currently unknown, mechanisms in order to explain the shit we're seeing now.

>There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate.
I don't know how to respond to this beyond "no".

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
When?
Can you point to any point in time when the Earth's climate has behaved like this?

>>9297280
>Wrong. No climate model predicts centuries out. The predictions published in agw papers show predictions year over year.
This doesn't respond to what I said. AGW is a century-scale warming. The resolution of a model does not imply that climatologists are trying to accurately predict the trend from year to year.

>Obviously there's uncertainty associated with it, but they make definite predictions such as +.5c by 2050.
That's what I said. You claimed they are just predicting warming overall when they are predicting a specific range of warming.

>Different models make different predictions which in turn give a range but eventually only one model should be accepted, otherwise it's a shit theory.
There is a standard model published by the IPCC. Having different models doesn't matter since they all show agreement with the theory.

>The failure to accurately predict the trends in temperature.
I just gave you several models that have been successfully predicting the trend for decades.

>Other than "it's an upward trend", the predictions have failed spectacularly.
Again, they predict a specific range, stop lying.

>That's a false implication.
You attempted to argue that global warming could be caused by a different factor like cloud cover, when it cannot. What did I falsely imply?

>Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause.
You just repeated the same fallacy I responded to in what you're quoting. It's not simply that CO2 explains the current warming trend, it's ALSO that there is no other explanation.

>Water consumption has increased exponentially as well.
So then explain how water consumption or any other factor you want explains the current trend better. You don't seem to understand how logical arguments or science works.

>The simpler theory is that the data is incorrect and the models are wrong.
This is not a theory as you have given no evidence to support it.

>>9297076
what are you and other climate alarmists actually trying so hard to prove? why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?

>>9297280
>There is no global increase in temperature that can't be explained by natural cycle in the climate.
There is no natural cycle that can explain the current trend. This is what climatologists have found. If you disagree, present a competing explanation. Until then you are just talking out of your ass. Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again when everyone can see you are not providing a balanced argument?

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
Warming this rapid is unprecedented. Try again.

>Just because we are here to see it doesn't mean we're responsible for it.
And again you completely ignore that this is not the argument being made. No climatologist says that "just" correlation proves we are responsible for it. Are you capable of considering multiple lines of evidence in your head at once? It appears not.

>>9297307
>>If we don't fix these issues, terrible things X, Y, and possibly Z will happen!
>why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?
Really?

>>9297307
>what are you and other climate alarmists actually trying so hard to prove?
It seems evident if you read the conversation. You can read can't you?

>why are you guys so emotionally invested in this?
Why are you denying climatology when you clearly have no good reason for doing so? It seems that the only one emotionally invested here is you. I'm just pointing out that you are spreading misinformation and nonsense on a science board. Why?

>>9295396
15000 scientists just waned us... again.

Who cares what the idiots willing to risk an entire planet think. I say shoot them dead and watch the average intelligence of the world rise with each.

>>9297316
if those things are going to happen, then they are probably going to happen anyway, the most we can probably do is minimize the damage, however being overly dramatic and intolerable is not going help anyone get anywhere.

>>9297317
I never even stated my position on climate change. I'm simply asking why you idiots get so dogmatic when someone disagrees, or is the slightest bit skeptical.

you treat belief in climate change like a cult.

>>9297323
shoot anyone who dares to think different? that sounds familiar.

>>9297338
>I never even stated my position on climate change.
As if it's not patently obvious by your idiotic framing.

>I'm simply asking why you idiots get so dogmatic when someone disagrees, or is the slightest bit skeptical.
Are you delusional? I presented evidence to support my claims, my opponents did not. They are dogmatic. It is not skepticism to deny a scientific theory for no reason other than your wish for it to be wrong.

>>9297295
>>9297302
Here's the IPCC's aggregate of models and observations.

If you make 50+ models in a range of +- 2 degrees, obviously you're going to have the observation fall in that range.

But no single model predicts a range besides the fact that they can't be 100% confident of their prediction. Saying you're 95% sure the temperature will rise .5-.6 degrees is different than saying you're 95% sure that it'll rise .5 degrees +- some uncertainty. Do you even into statistics?

If AGW is a credible theory, it will have predictive power. Without that, it should be dismissed. If you take 100 different models and some are right sometimes, you can't really say you've confirmed your theory.

>hat's not simpler at all. You'd need to provide other, currently unknown, mechanisms in order to explain the shit we're seeing now.
You don't need mechanisms to explain shit that isn't happening. The NOAA has been on full damage control since last year.

>The pattern we see now has repeated itself many times before.
>When?
look at the global temp history for the last x million years. It's cyclical, and has varied more rapidly and more severely than in the last 120 years.

>You just repeated the same fallacy I responded to in what you're quoting.
No. The other explanation is that there is no warming. I can make correlations between any number of things. I can take that data and fit the graph. You don't necessarily have to understand what the connection is even. If you think you need to know the significance of a the model before you validate it, you're wrong. More often than not, models and observation have been used to create theories than the other way around.

The only bad logic and science in this discussion is the blind support of AGW.

I don't know what world you live in where known bad data, shitty models and political agenda imply causation.

It's ok though. In 50 years, this will all blow over and we can have a good laugh.

>>9297347
>As if it's not patently obvious by your idiotic framing.
Not really, you're merely projecting.

The next time you ask yourself why people "deny science" look in the mirror, it because people would rather let the world burn than have to deal with people like you.

>>9296326

>>9297347
You're right, but blindy accepting the dogma of a bunch of bleeding heart alarmists is.

If you think agw is a thing and a problem, so be it. Go live in a shithole without electricity, food, water or anything else.

For that matter, biomass has the highest impact factor on a per emission basis, so off yourself.

Show us some real policy that will actually make a difference. Don't try to shove carbon tax pyramid schemes or scouts honor agreements. If we're wrong, it'll still help so no harm done.

>>9297351
>If you make 50+ models in a range of +- 2 degrees, obviously you're going to have the observation fall in that range.
The oldest of these models predicted a warming trend between 0.1 and 0.35 degrees C per decade, not even close to +-2 degrees. The difference between those two trends would be 4 degrees only after 160 years.

>Saying you're 95% sure the temperature will rise .5-.6 degrees is different than saying you're 95% sure that it'll rise .5 degrees +- some uncertainty.
So what? I don't see how any of this responds to what I said.

>If AGW is a credible theory, it will have predictive power.
It does, so you have no point.

>You don't need mechanisms to explain shit that isn't happening.
OK, so explain how the data is wrong. Why can't you just support your retarded claims with a single argument?

>look at the global temp history for the last x million years. It's cyclical, and has varied more rapidly and more severely than in the last 120 years.
You do realize that the interglacial warming we see in the past occurs over many thousands of years and is thus at least an order of magnitude slower than current global warming right? Once again your half-assed attempt at pretending to know what you're talking about fails. Go take your own advice, see how much warming there was, and divide it by the time it occurred.

>Just because it explains it, doesn't mean it's a cause.
>>You just repeated the same fallacy I responded to in what you're quoting.
>No. The other explanation is that there is no warming.
That doesn't make sense, since the "it" being explained is the warming. Try to follow the argument instead of just responding with a knee-jerk reaction.

>>9297351
>If you make 50+ models in a range of +- 2 degrees, obviously you're going to have the observation fall in that range.
I think you're confusing models with specific model runs. They're not the same thing.

>But no single model predicts a range besides the fact that they can't be 100% confident of their prediction.
All models predict ranges. That's what they're built to do.

>If you take 100 different models and some are right sometimes, you can't really say you've confirmed your theory.
I don't think you understand what climate models even are.

>You don't need mechanisms to explain shit that isn't happening.
But the effects I listed ARE happening.

>The NOAA has been on full damage control since last year.
??????

>It's cyclical, and has varied more rapidly and more severely than in the last 120 years.
When has it varied more rapidly than now?

>The other explanation is that there is no warming.
That completely fails to explain the warming that's happing.

>I can make correlations between any number of things. I can take that data and fit the graph.
No-one cares. Science requires more than just correlation, and climatologists can provide mechanisms that make actual predictions.

>I don't know what world you live in where known bad data, shitty models and political agenda imply causation.
Now you're just shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

>It's ok though. In 50 years, this will all blow over and we can have a good laugh.
Really?
Because lots of people said that 50 years ago too, and they're still the ones being laughed at.

>>9297359
>The next time you ask yourself why people "deny science" look in the mirror, it because people would rather let the world burn than have to deal with people like you.
Wah Wah Wah,

>>9297351
>I can make correlations between any number of things. I can take that data and fit the graph. You don't necessarily have to understand what the connection is even. If you think you need to know the significance of a the model before you validate it, you're wrong. More often than not, models and observation have been used to create theories than the other way around.
Again, I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the data is wrong, or how other factors explain it. So far you have failed again and again and again to do so. Which makes all this speculation about what you could do irrelevant, since you refuse to do it! You have no valid alternative, so stop pretending like you do.

>The only bad logic and science in this discussion is the blind support of AGW.
How exactly is it blind when every point is supported by evidence. The only thing being supported blindly is your belief that it's wrong, for no reason. You are a massive hypocrite.

>>9297371
This, why aren't alarmists traditionalist luddites?

>>9297371
>You're right, but blindy accepting the dogma of a bunch of bleeding heart alarmists is.
Bleeding heart alarmists?
Are you just concatenating buzzwords now?

>If you think agw is a thing and a problem, so be it. Go live in a shithole without electricity, food, water or anything else.
That wouldn't actually solve the problem.

>For that matter, biomass has the highest impact factor on a per emission basis, so off yourself.
What are you even trying to argue? You’re just lobbing random insults now.

>Show us some real policy that will actually make a difference.
What does that have to do with this thread? Whether or not a scientific theory is true doesn't depend on what policies politicians will or won't carry out.

>>9297381
>why aren't alarmists traditionalist luddites?
Because that's a retarded straw man.

Why don't deniers chug a bottle of crude oil, if that stuff is so safe for the environment?

>>9297375
It's common to make models that only make 1 prediction, and then test that single prediction against data.

What effects ARE happening exactly? We can't even agree that the data is correct. NOAA has had to massively adjust its data recently. I'm still waiting on them to release their data and software like they promised.

Look at the global temperature data on the wiki. There's been 5 times in the last 100k years where the temperature rate was greater than what it's been in the last 100. There's been even more and drastic changes over 100 year periods further back as well. If you can't read the graph on the wiki, then why are you here?

>That completely fails to explain the warming that's happening
What caused the warming in the past? It sure as fuck wasn't CO2 from humans.

Science doesn't require more than correlation. At least at the birth of a new field. Some of the best theories we have currently were based purely on data or purely on theory. It wasn't until later they were fully accepted, but that doesn't mean it was any less valid when it was first published.

50 years ago, you fags said the earth was going to go into an ice age. The only people being laughed at are weathermen and climate scientists.

>>9297359
>Not really, you're merely projecting.
That doesn't even make sense in context. Do you or do you not deny AGW? It doesn't matter if you ignore the question, we already know it's the former.

>The next time you ask yourself why people "deny science" look in the mirror
Yes clearly people deny science because someone tears down their arguments with scientific evidence and logic. It's clearly not because no matter what that evidence is they will deny it because they would rather cling to their ideology than accept reality.

>>9297371
>Mitigating climate change means getting rid of civilization
Why are you being so alarmist?

>Show us some real policy that will actually make a difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

>>9297379
There's numerous articles and changes that have been made to the data set for climate fitting. Both through 3rd party investigations and from the organizations themselves. NOAA has a huge section of their site about their problems specifically.

You say it's supported by evidence, but it's not actually evidence.

If you can start with just temperature increases and arrive at greenhouse gases, i'd believe you.

If you can start at just greenhouse gasses and arrive at temperature observations, i'd believe you.

But you haven't done either.
The theory says
if greenhouse gases then temperature increase

to prove the theory, you can't use the conclusion, but that's what always happens. that's why there's an argument in the first place.

>>9297385
>retarded straw man
>deniers chug a bottle of crude oil
>safe for the environment?

not even comparable retard. safe for the environment, not safe for a human to drink. if we saw climate change rise since the industrial revolution, then a reactionary movement would still work, it just not a profitable idea

>>9297389
Here's how carbon taxes work:

Company B buys offsets from company A. Company C buys B, D buys C, A buys D. No carbon emissions have been reduced.

In the meantime, all four companies pass the cost of the taxes in the form of increase in goods and services to the consumer.

It's literally a pyramid scheme. Guess who's at the top? Al Gore.

>>9297389
>deny AGW
The verbage of your question makes the tacit accusation that being skeptical of the narrative is tantamount to conspiracy.
"Do you deny the established reality of Santa Claus?"
Sounds like BS doesn't it?

>>9297401
>There's numerous articles and changes that have been made to the data set for climate fitting. Both through 3rd party investigations and from the organizations themselves. NOAA has a huge section of their site about their problems specifically.
Yes, you can read about it in my posts above. But correcting flaws in the data makes it better, not wrong.

>If you can start with just temperature increases and arrive at greenhouse gases, i'd believe you.
>If you can start at just greenhouse gasses and arrive at temperature observations, i'd believe you.
>But you haven't done either.
>The theory says
>if greenhouse gases then temperature increase
I don't understand what these demands mean. The theory fully explains how we get the amount of warming we observe from greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gasses increase warming by radiating heat back towards the Earth. This heat then has various effects that increase warming further, such as decreasing albedo and increasing outgassing of GHGs from the oceans. The radiative forcing from each factor that effects the climate is estimated until the observed radiative forcing is explained.

>to prove the theory, you can't use the conclusion, but that's what always happens.
Which conclusion did I use?

>>9297412
>The verbage of your question makes the tacit accusation that being skeptical of the narrative is tantamount to conspiracy.
Again, denying something but not being able to justify why you deny it is not skepticism. It's simply denial. I welcome anyone to skeptically question AGW. Not to deny it no matter what evidence is presented before you. Do you get the difference yet? Or are you just going to continue to cloak your irrationality in the guise of skepticism? I await a rational inquiry.

>>9297416
it's wrong because it starts with greenhouse gases, and uses adjustments of parameters to match the data.

If you can't describe the physics without having to use the data, you're going to overfit your model, making it useless.

The reason pictures like yours say CO2 is the cause, is because the models were designed so that humans were the cause. That's the problem.

Look at temperature changes in the past that were as or more drastic than they are now. Do you think that was CO2 would have the same RF value there? If so, how did it get there?

>>9297410
>Company B buys offsets
Who said anything about offsets? I suggest you read that article since you don't know what a carbon tax is.

>>9297416
>This heat then has various effects that increase warming further
All the hard evidence we have shows that those effects are all NEGATIVE feedbacks. The AGW community is in denial of these data, presumably because it would have a negative impact on the amount of shekels they get paid to study "climate change."

>>9297387
>What effects ARE happening exactly?
A bunch of things. Unless you want me to list some off the top my head (and probably get some wrong), try reading the latest IPCC report.

>We can't even agree that the data is correct.
That's because there's a lot of people who are willing to blindly assert the data is wrong. Is there anything in specific you disagree with?

>NOAA has had to massively adjust its data recently.
Adjusting data is part of their job, not some secret conspiracy.
Raw data has a bunch of artefacts that need to be removed before the data is used. The way those artifices are removed is described and justified in the paper that presents the data.

>I'm still waiting on them to release their data and software like they promised.
What data and software?

>Look at the global temperature data on the wiki. There's been 5 times in the last 100k years where the temperature rate was greater than what it's been in the last 100.
Where? I have the page open and I don't see it.
Given an actual data and reconstruction, rather than vague claims.

>What caused the warming in the past? It sure as fuck wasn't CO2 from humans.
So? Things can have different causes. No-one is claiming that AGW is real because humans exist.

>Science doesn't require more than correlation.
The fuck?

>50 years ago, you fags said the earth was going to go into an ice age.
That's simply not true. At no point did the majority of papers claim that.

>>9297426
>it's wrong because it starts with greenhouse gases, and uses adjustments of parameters to match the data.
No it doesn't. Each factor is analyzed separately, and then put together until you have a model which fits the data. Each factor has to conform to known physics and data.

>If you can't describe the physics without having to use the data
All physics is based on data. You are being disingenuous by ignoring the fact that the total observed radiative forcing is different data from the radiative forcing from CO2, or the greenhouse effect, or the albedo effect.

>The reason pictures like yours say CO2 is the cause, is because the models were designed so that humans were the cause. That's the problem.
No it wasn't. It's simply what the data tells us.

>Look at temperature changes in the past that were as or more drastic than they are now.
Like what?

>Do you think that was CO2 would have the same RF value there?
Yes.

>If so, how did it get there?
How did what get where? How did CO2 get into the atmosphere? Out-gassing from the oceans, biological activity, volcanic eruptions, etc. What is your point here? The same climatology that explains current global warming is necessary to explain past changes. I am still waiting for your alternate theory.

>>9297431
Here you go.

You can see the rate of change by the slope of the mean temperature. Anywhere the slope is steeper than the last few years, the change is more rapid. Since these highlighted areas are linear, you can choose any 100 year period you want and it'll still be more drastic than the total change in the last 100 years.

>>9297429
Your picture is from an infamously flawed paper, it been solidly debunked for several years:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

>All the hard evidence we have shows that those effects are all NEGATIVE feedbacks.
Like what? How is outgassing a negative feedback? How is albedo loss a negative feedback? What is your competing model and what is the hard evidence for it?

>>9297454
...you do realize that the scale of that graph is in THOUSANDS of year right?

>>9297457
what difference does it make?

You can zoom in to any 100 year section of that graph. you'll still get the same slope because it's linear.

>>9297454
>Anywhere the slope is steeper than the last few years,
None of the current warming is even on that graph.

You fail.

>>9297464
according to the graph, it is. that's why it's circled in black.

but keep moving goalposts, i'm fine with that.

>>9297463
I get 0.14 degrees C per decade on the fastest slope. Today it's 0.7 per decade. You lose.

>>9297466
No the graph is Antarctic temperature taken from ice cores. It takes a long time for ice to accumulate so it doesn't show present warming. And it's not even global temperature anyway.

>>9297466
>according to the graph, it is.
No it isn't.

>that's why it's circled in black.
That's not modern, that's many thousands of years ago. Look at the god damn graph you posted.

>>9297467
then you're wrong, because current quote is that temperatures have increased 1.7 degrees in the last 137 years.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

which is a change of .012 degrees Celsius per year. much less than before. It would be nice to look at the actual ice core data, but i don't have time for that currently.

>>9297474
There's clearly data represented as being taken less than 0 years before. So it can't all be ice data. or the graph is fucked.

>>9297477
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
>Since 1970, global surface temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.17°C (around 0.3° Fahrenheit) per decade—more than twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed for the entire period of recorded observations (1880-2015).
Read you own source.

>>9297479
>There's clearly data represented as being taken less than 0 years before
What?

Climate change in Western discourse started as "I don't have a tv" hipster talk and has only been perpetuated by alarmist rhetoric.

>>9297160
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.95778a8321c8

>>9297429

>>9295396
more like the only people who care about the issue enough to make a thread about it are deniers.
it could just as well be a single person making all these threads, that's the beauty of anonimity. also, trolling with 100% guaranteed replies

>>9297477
Typo, I meant to write 0.14 degrees per century and 0.7 degrees per century, not decade. So warming over the entire instrumental record is 5 times faster than the interglacial record. That was me being generous. If you only look at warming in the past 50 years then it's 9 times as fast. That's what the source you posted says. So why did you claim the opposite while demanding I do the math when you clearly had not done it?

>>9295396

You're forgetting that 4chan was always for edgy contrarians.

>>9297728
>rhetoric
What this thread and every other like it shows is that you are projecting. Deniers constantly make shit up or pretend to know what they're talking about, get proven wrong, and then walk away to say the exact same lie in the next thread.

See the following for good examples:

>>9296782 Claimed climatologists say the world will end and place instruments strategically, no evidence given, Al Gore cited as climatologist

>>9296989 Claimed temp record is invalid because of UHI and old data, given studies on the validity of temperature data, won't present any evidence or argument to support claim, keeps moving the goalposts which get scored on multiple times

>>9297004 Can't know nuffin!

>>9297200 Claims models are inaccurate, shown models are accurate, continues to ignore that they are. Claims AGW is based on correlation alone, shown it isn't, continues to ignore that it is.

>>9297222 Claims statistical methods are not accurately determining global temps, can't explain how. Claims cloud cover competes with CO2 as an explanation of warming, shown cloud cover has decreased as temperature increases,

>>9297410 Asks for policy mitigating climate change, given wikipedia on carbon tax, preceded to criticize carbon offset instead of carbon tax.

>>9297429 Post long debunked paper claiming negative feedback that even its authors have admitted is fatally flawed.

>>9297454 Claims interglacial warming is faster than current warming, demands that the slope be calculated and compared to current warming, when it is it shows current warming is 5 to 9 times faster than the fastest interglacial warming.

>>9296757
Except electricity also comes from renewables

>>9297340
No
Shoot the idiots who ignore 99.99% of climate scientists yet know nothing about it themselves yet are willing to damn the other 7 billion for greed and stupidity.

Highest CO2 levels in 20 million years
Acidification of the oceans
Bleaching of the coral

Over population
90% of fish gone from over fishing
70% of earth deforested

When we kill that which sustains us, what will be do?

Bioengineer the planet? I haven't heard that's been successful in small closed systems. Want them to try globally if they fail smaller scale? It's a stupid risk.
Terraform Mars is a joke. 100,000-200,000 years with current technology and one solar flare would wipe our surface inhabitants and rip the atmosphere away without a magnetic field to protect the planet.
Go to another star? Nearly 50,000 years to get to the closest at 4.3ly and even if we achieve 10% of the speed of light its still close to 50 years, one way. What if we get there and the planet is not habitable? 50,000 years back using conventional rockets which means, not coming back.

We have one place to live. The ultimate spaceship travelling through the cosmos. Absolutely perfect for human life and sustainable of we could get out collective heads out of our asses. Everything else is pure science fiction. Ludicrous some of our brightest minds suggest such things. The cost alone to achieve a fraction, if we're lucky of what we already have? I question the logic of it.

>>9297889
and you are the one to judge other people?
gosh anon you are such a saint :^)

>>9297889 claims that manmade global warming is relevant and dangerous yet still uses technical attainments and that elicited it in the first place

>>9297913
>70% of earth deforested

Interestingly, the USA has more trees now than when the evile white man first showed up.

Are the rest of you guys even trying? Get on my level.

>>9297929
What is your point?
No-one is seriously advocating for a "back to the trees" response to AGW, so accusing people of hypocrisy for not abandoning technology is nonsensical.

>>9297934
>your level?
There's more to the planet than the US. Much more.
Second, no your stat is wrong. The US has 70% of the forest area today it had in 1630. Pretty good really but still less.
The most important forests in the world are the rain forests. Guess where we mine for pharmaceuticals for instance. Being cleared for cheap toilet paper and McDonalds beef.

>>9297947
but you are accusing people of hypocrisy for not believing in your technology

>>9297920
>>9297929
>responds to post about dishonest rhetoric with more dishonest rhetoric

>>9296944
>guys we need to stop burning coal so we have clean air to breath and so we don't cook our atmosphere
>muh jobs
are you fucking insane

>>9297959
What?

>>9297961
it was a figure of speech that was used so that the dishonest rhetorics of >>9297889 of Nazareth came out clear

it's natural.
besides it'd be better for me if it was warmer here

>>9296145
>beliefs are a part of reality
actually that's exactly what they are not

>>9297889
excuse me but

first this guy >>9297121 >>9297143 recommends a read of 100 pages (claims it were only 2 necessary btw which is like omiting the smallprint), then he recommends a blog post with 2000 comments, while he doesn't even care to defend his pov with his own words, and you expect anyone to thoroughly go through this in a thread that's gonna vanish in days?

counter skepticism with responsible arguments but not with a mace of internets +2

>>9297978
Which dishonest rhetoric? Do you have a point beyond saying that I judge people for spreading misinformation. Because I don't see why that is bad.

>>9297980
>it's natural
So what is the natural cause?

pony XD

>>9298004
they were not even spreading misinformation

>>9297994
>first this guy >>9297121 # >>9297143 # recommends a read of 100 pages (claims it were only 2 necessary btw which is like omiting the smallprint)
Why are you lying when the post is right there? I'll quote it:

>>has the same finding been reproduced?
>There are a large amount of papers showing the UHI is localized and thus removed by homogenization. See page 243-245:
>http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

So in response to a specific question that you asked, I cited the section on UHI on pages 243-245 which is less than two pages. So I did not recommend you read a 100 page report, I gave you what you asked for, but you had no response so ignored my response and shifted the goalposts. Pathetic.

>then he recommends a blog post with 2000 comments, while he doesn't even care to defend his pov with his own words
Again, you are being dishonest. I gave you a blog post so that you could educate yourself on temperature adjustments after claiming that they are invalid. But you have no reason for why they are invalid. I have defended every point I have made with logic and evidence. You have failed time and time again to do so. You are being a massive hypocrite.

>counter skepticism with responsible arguments but not with a mace of internets +2
I don't see any skepticism in this thread, just denial. If you would actually like to respond to what I said with an argument no one is stopping you.

>>9298033
Did you read the post? I explained exactly how they were. Care to defend any of it? No, you're just going to walk away.

>>9298041
this is a thread dedicated to people who dont believe in climate change
they were not spreading info, they are posting in the exact right spot

>>9298040
>I don't see any skepticism in this thread, just denial.
hair splitting, it's the same, you can connotate it how you like
>cited the section on UHI on pages 243-245
that still requires reading all of it

>>9298041
>No, you're just going to walk away.
but i'm still here, believe it or not some people actually sleep and work sometimes

>>9298055
Non sequitur.

>>9298064
proof?

>>9295396

No, what happens is there are varying opinions on the cause, level and speed of man made climate change.

But because everyone is retarded or trolling It always becomes a straw man battle where you either 100% deny all climate change or say it’s 100% humans fault. Very few believe either extreme but it’s a lot easier to argue if you just misrepresent your opponents standpoint.

>>9298059
>hair splitting, it's the same,
Denying scientific theories for no reason is not skepticism, it's just retarded. If you were skeptical then you would be able to explain why you reject climatology, but you so far have failed to do so.

>but i'm still here, believe it or not some people actually sleep and work sometimes
This doesn't respond to my post; you're still not defending any of the misinformation posted by deniers, so yeah you did walk away. The fact that you keep making substanceless posts does not mean you are participating in the argument.

>>9298068
Sorry I don't see why I would need to "prove" that what the thread is supposedly dedicated to has nothing to do whether the claims in that thread is correct or not. Maybe you can enlighten me on the connection?

>>9298069
This is a weak attempt at equivocation.
The consensus among climatologists is that it is 100% humans fault, since natural forcings actually have a net cooling effect. The anthropogenic forcings account for even more warming than is observed. See the image in >>9297416

>>9296326
math isn't empirical you mongoloid

>>9298285
that is your interpretation
however it is not shared

>blindly believing anything as politically charged as climate change
I'm not arguing one way or another but even stupids can realize the only reason the argument is as big as it is is because of the amount of control you can push on other nations with it.
It has nothing to do with science or the environment. Those are trivial arguments merely meant to distract from the true question:
Why does climate change get as much funding and focus as it does when the effects are minimal?

>>9298010
Sunspots, methane leaks in Russia, various other gases being emitted by the inside of the earth, etc. You're not arguing that without humans the climate would stay the same are you?

This actually gives me a new question that I've never heard.
What is considered healthy global climate change?

>>9298413
And again you fail to defend anything.

>>9298459
>blindly believing the effects of climate change are minimal despite the scientific evidence.
Why are you on the science board?

>>9297004

> Too many variables like when biologist try and balance some animal in an ecology.

Holy shit, did you dress yourself this morning?

>>9298468
Not same anon, but I think the argument is humans are directly causing climate change at an unprecedented level.

>>9298468
>Sunspots
Sunspots have been decreasing for decades while the temperature rises. And this doesn't make sense since sunspots don't cause temperature increases, they are just correlated with solar activity which does affect temperature. But again, solar activity has been decreasing for decades.

>methane leaks in Russia
Methane is leaking because warming is milking permafrost. This first explain why it was warming to begin with.

>various other gases being emitted by the inside of the earth
Such as? I find it curious that you will admit gas emissions can warm the earth, but instead of looking at our GHG emmissions, which we know we are in massive quantities that already explain the observed warming, you speculate on mysterious gases from within the earth. Unfortunately for your argument, since we can actually test the composition of the atmosphere and distinguish via isotope which CO2 is manmade and which is natural, that speculation is disproven.

>You're not arguing that without humans the climate would stay the same are you?
Without humans, the climate would be slowly cooling over thousands of years as we go approach the next glacial period. Instead, we are seeing an unprecedented rate of warming which threatens much of the ecology and infrastructure humans rely on.

>What is considered healthy global climate change?
Whatever is not excessively harmful to humans, obviously. Quickly diverging from the stable climate of the Holocene, too quickly for ecosystems to adapt, is quite harmful.

>>9295396
Sage
/pol/ is leaking again.
All here accept man as the main cause of climate change. Go back to /pol/.

>>9297114
>the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement
yawn. Hausfather et al. (2016) found that the UHI effect is localized only to developed areas, and that the homogenization techniques used to control for it do effectively remove the bias from the overall data set.
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067640/full

try making claims that haven't been repeatedly debunked next time.

>>9297206
>So you deny the greenhouse effect exists? Because it's a completely causative explanation that is proven directly via fundamental physics, thermodynamics, and measured directly through radiative spectroscopy.

Nice strawman argument, you conveniently ignore the specifics to the situation. Namely that 99% of CO2 absorbable radiation has already been absorbed. Not to mention that water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, as well as much more plentiful than CO2. And it almost entirely cover the absorption spectrum of CO2. Net result: additional anthropogenic CO2 does very little.

>>9299091
>>the heat island thing is not only in cities, it occurs also in every rural repeated query measurement
>yawn. Hausfather et al. (2016) found that the UHI effect is localized only to developed areas, and that the homogenization techniques used to control for it do effectively remove the bias from the overall data set.

> Gosh, we homogenized flat temps and got flat temps (and the rate of urbanization in the U.S. has decreased incredibly; no more big UHI induced warming gradient). Not impressed. If Zeke and company hadn't done whatever it takes to make sure that USHCN data looks like the USCRN data, they would look like fools.

But what of clean data from long-term. Look here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

NOAA class 1 stations warm at half the rate from NOAA official results. If that ain't data tampering, what is?
>nb4 we homognized those stations and then it warmed just as fast! Adding UHI has a way of doing that.

And look what happens when you use non-TOB adjusted (tampered) data?
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-6.25.08-AM.gif
NO WARMING!

PS For you shills who are slurping down the KoolAid and SkS:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

>>9299091
So which NASA temperature history are we supposed to believe in? Since Climate Change ideology says that anyone who doubts the accuracy of NASA results is a lunatic Conspiracy Theorist, you're in serious trouble.

>nb4 We go new information.
Nothing has changed, temperature readings are the same.

>>9299119
>Nice strawman argument, you conveniently ignore the specifics to the situation.
No, that's what you did by attempting to argue that AGW is based on correlation alone, when it's clearly a causative explanation.

>Namely that 99% of CO2 absorbable radiation has already been absorbed.
Has been absorbed by what?

>Not to mention that water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, as well as much more plentiful than CO2.
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, so that doesn't explain anything. What has increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Hint: the greenhouse effect from emissions of CO2.

>And it almost entirely cover the absorption spectrum of CO2. Net result: additional anthropogenic CO2 does very little.
That doesn't follow. Most of the radiation being sent back towards the earth is simply making the Earth its normal temperature instead of a barren iceball. We're talking about what causes the *change* from that baseline, so comparing the effect of CO2 to the total greenhouse effect is irrelevant. It's the change in radiative forcing that causes climate change, not the absolute radiative forcing. See the image in >>9297416 for radiative forcing changes relative to preindustrial levels.

>>9295396
>believe in
it wouldn't be an issue if engineers just solved the problem without involving the public

>>9299154
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Thoroughly debunked:

https://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

If you only correct warming biases and ignore cooling biases, you will get a smaller trend. Not exactly shocking. And the same basic fallacy you used when you gave show a graph of unadjusted stations that are not affected by afternoon TOBS.

>PS For you shills who are slurping down the KoolAid and SkS:
>https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

>>9295396
>believe

Nobody who has any actual knowledge of science "believes" in climate change or any other topic for that matter. Science isn't a matter of belief.

You are conflating belief with educated trust. While most of us aren't climate scientists and most of us have not bothered to read the papers and really educate ourselves properly on the topic what many of us do have is an understanding of the scientific method and peer review. We know the process is self correcting and we confidence in the results produced by researchers around the world. Right now there is a wealth of data that has been verified by various climate scientists that suggests man-made climate change is real and it is having an impact on our environment. Most claims to the contrary have been proven wrong or debunked. There is however a great deal more to learn and further research will hopefully give more insight as to the severity of damage already done and possible ways to rectify it.

>>9299168
>So which NASA temperature history are we supposed to believe in?
The most current one, which has the most data. By the way, your graph is fraudelent, since the historical data is all available and when graphed looks nothing like that.

>Nothing has changed, temperature readings are the same.
Yeah nothing has changed except more stations have been added, correction techniques have been improved, and the spacial analysis method has been improved.

>>9299238
>Nobody who has any actual knowledge of science "believes" in climate change or any other topic for that matter. Science isn't a matter of belief.
>You are conflating belief with educated trust.

Most people would consider knowledge to be a subset of belief.

>>9299272
>Most people would incorrectly consider knowledge to be a subset of belief.

FTFY

>>9299154
Ah yes NOAA tampered with the data to lower the warming rate, makes perfect sense.