/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9706079
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The last 2 year period has been the biggest drop in global temperature over the past 120 years.

The 0.56°C drop in global temperatures comes at a very weird time for hysterical low IQ Climate scientists.

Whereas top physicists like Freeman Dyson have criticized the consensus as being unscientific and of low merit. It seems the more intelligent skeptics have been proven correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Climate_change

>>9706084
>120 years
literally nothing, fuck off kike.

Physicist Freeman Dyson

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in

What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago.

[T]he environmental movement [has been] hijacked by a bunch of climate fanatics, who have captured the attention of the public with scare stories. …

China and India have a simple choice to make. Either they get rich [by burning prodigious quantities of coal and causing] a major increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or they stay poor. I hope they choose to get rich. …

The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide … is to make the planet greener, [by] feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds [and] increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests."

>>9706091
Here we see the digital manifestation of the low IQ hysterical climate nut. Notice the low IQ intense emotional reaction and lack of awareness of historical carbon levels.

>but muh consensus based on predictive models that don't function correctly

Guess what. We are climate scientists, we know what will happen in 2100.

Oh yes, that global cooling period from 2016 to 2018? Well, actually it would be stupid to expect us to have predicted it.

>>9706097
>here we see someone desperately try to incite a sense of fear in his viewers because the temperature has shifted ever so slightly over a climatically insignificant time period ( in direct contradiction with the heating theory they were shitting out not even 6 months ago). We can see him tense up and squirm as his bullshit is carelessly glossed over and it becomes increasingly apparent to him that nobody on the board gives a single fuck about his fear mongering.

THE STATE OF CLIMATE NUTS RIGHT NOW

>low IQ brainlets
when will they learn?

>>9706111
Where did you read any fear mongering in the op? The op is entirely about mocking climate nuts.

>>9706079
>take a temperature peak from 2 years ago as your starting point
>ignore everything else
>OMG IT'S COOLING
fucking morons

Hmm I wonder why they only factored global surface temperatures into this article.

>>9706112
>>9706114
Stop bumping your own thread. Or, at least change your vernacular so it's not so obvious. It's like watching a down syndrome kid talk into a mirror and looking around to see if anyone notices he's not actually talking to anyone. It's amusing, but it's sad.

>>9706124
>job is to predict climate
>fail hard to predict anomalous 2-year period

>>9706145
predicting trends is not the same thing as predicting everything that will happen, which is impossible to do in any case

ITT: poltards
Pic related

>>9706151
>Predict Climate
>miss 2 year cooling period


hahahahahhahahhahaha

fucking retard

>FORECASTING CLIMATE
>LISTEN TO US
>WE KNOW THE FUTURE

>>9706079
With all that cooling, 2017 is still the second hottest year since fucking 1880, right behind 2016
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91604

This is being linked with the massive amount of methane released from the melting antarctic ice sheet.

I'm afraid the harm is irreversible at this point and we have start talking about damage mitigation rather than prevention.

>>9706175
>it's going to be runaway heating
>earth cools

>Climate deniers still haven't figured out the difference between climate and weather

This anime reaction image is the best you deserve.

>>9706079
Yes because we are once again approaching the solar minimum of cycle 24... the exact thing that happened 1982-84. 1W difference per square meter is a meaningful number on a planetary scale. I really hate how this topic gets politicized constantly by anyone and everyone to fit their given agenda.

>>9706178
The long term result is runaway heating. Short term is abnormal weather and climate instability.

>>9706209
nonsensical post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyioZODhKbE

>>9706184
>global warming
>neither global nor warming

>>9706211
its true though... after the earth becomes devoid of life, the glaciers will return and they will stay. were talking 10s of thousands of years though

>>9706240
show me the equations

>>9706277
haha, obvious speculation.

but youd expect a heat engine to cool once it breaks. earth is afterall just a complex biomechanical heat engine with solar energy as its fuel. 80% of our atmosphere is nitrogen, which is also a key element in all biological process, and it does cycle. but if i were you i wouldnt let silly little concerns like science's total lack of understanding of the complexities involved interfere with your happy funtime consume-fest.

I enjoy how people frequently use the notion that because the current modeling has gaps in it there is no problem and we should go back to doing whatever the fuck we want, as if its completely rational to be more reckless with less information.

>I heard the Titanic is sinking but how can it be sinking when my part of the boat is flying 300 feet into the air?

t. OP

Global Warming is a hoax so that the Jews can carbon tax everybody in the near future and hoard more wealth.

I suspect AGW is happening. But something I've noticed is that anything put forth as evidence to the contrary is folded into the theory of AGW and then used as confirmation of the theory. So my question is...

What evidence could theoretically be presented that would falsify our current understanding of climate change? Something that would unambiguously imply something contradictory to our current assumptions/predictions?

If the answer is "nothing" or "we can't think of anything" then the theory is not scientific.

>>9706168
The best part is how they keep having to lower their starting point on each subsequent graph since reality decided "Nah."
Note how in 1992, the range is super narrow - yet the temperature disagreed with the forecast the lost at that point. Whatever modeling assumptions they made is clearly false at that point on some level.
The observed temperature also falls out of range on 1986, 87, 93, 98, and 2013 (you could also include 2014). That's at least 5 years out of 30 - well above a 5% error rate. Given that this is a 30 sample size in terms of years, it's highly unlikely that this is due to a small sample size either. The worst part is that 2/3rds of the model is a hindcast - a hindcast that only has a predictive capacity of 16/20 (80%, well below acceptable scientific standards - you could ask some economist to draw some fucking delta graphs and it'd be just as useful). It's a fucking shitshow, and I don't see how people take any of this seriously.

AT CURRENT RATES (PAST 2 YEARS) THE EARTH WILL FUCKING FREEZE

ALERT

>>9706426
Yes, exactly why we should. It's a waste to hamper your economy for unclear reasons. It's just as likely we develop geoengineering tech that is so far superior to now that it becomes not a problem.

It would be stupid to sacrifice your relative position in global powers over such fears. Nuclear war or being conquered is a worse future than some warming.

How do you tell the difference between a paid russian troll and a genuine "politically incorrect" SJW?

>>9706124
>take a temperature low from 70 years ago as starting point
>ignore everything else
>OMG ITS WARMING FROM COW FARTS
I can tell you are a high IQ intellectual that that loves Rick and Morty more than the average redditor.

>>9707220
We are on track for the oceans to freeze. Global Cooling is at century highs.

LOOK AT THE FUCKING DATA SHEEPLE

-0.57 degrees c in 2 YEARS

>>9706079
>>9707264
This happens after every El Nino, the temperature peaks and then falls back. The 2016 El Nino was particularly strong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9316_El_Ni%C3%B1o_event

Funny how after every El Nino the same exact argument pops up, while the warming trend continues.

>>9707485
The earth is cooling. FACT.

Look at the graphs. We are heading to a mini ice age.

>>9707485
Post the data on global temp change due to el nino and how long. Show me the accurate forecasts from climate predictors who are speculating on 2100.

>>9707041
Ok, so far the evidence is so against the idea that man made climate change is wrong that it's ridiculous to hold your position. You question is: What evidence would we need to show that the Sun orbits the Earth? or What evidence would we need to show that the Earth is in fact a flat sphere?

That's not how science works and the fact you think it does is astonishing.

That said, if basic physics and chemistry suddenly broke down and we proved that CO2 does NOT absorb long wave radiation.

If basic atmospheric science suddenly broke down and we proved that the percentage of C-14 in the atmosphere is NOT falling.

Or if basic atmospheric science suddenly broke down and we proved that the stratosphere is NOT cooling while the troposphere is warming.

Or if basic atmospheric science suddenly broke down and we proved that O2 in the atmosphere is NOT falling showing the source of CO2 is combustion and not any other natural process.

If basic chemistry suddenly broke down and we proved that the ocean is NOT acidifying

If basic physics suddenly broke down and we proved that the ocean is NOT rising.

If basic glaciology suddenly broke down and we proved that glaciers are NOT retreating

If basic biology suddenly broke down and we proved that animals are NOT migrating to the poles.

If basic oceanography suddenly broke down and we proved that coral is NOT bleaching.

Face it. You're argument is fucked.

>>9707525
>>9707525
Low IQ list of arguments.

Man Made Climate change must include all human ability to modify weather including reversing what we are doing now, controlling it via other methods, etc.

Dimming, reversal procedures, and a near infinite list of other things.

On top of this the actual prediction model is shit so we really don't know what we don't know yet. For all we know the warming could hit a natural barrier soon. The models are not good enough.

>>9707604
>Man Made Climate change must include all human ability to modify weather

What the fuck does that even mean

>>9707496
Wrong, the Earth is warming, look at the graphs.

>>9707496
>>9707627
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018

>>9707507
La Nina cooling follows El Nino warming

http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

>>9707627
What time scale?

My time scale it's cooling significantly. Both in the extreme long one (since azolla event) and short one (2 years)

>>9707634
>What time scale?
The time scale of global warming.

>>9707636
What criteria did you use to select it? Is it more or less valid than my criteria?

Relativity lets you do a lot of things with comparisons.

>>9707633
Thanks for proof the earth is cooling.

>>9707639
>What criteria did you use to select it?
The period during which man has been significantly increasing radiative forcing via greenhouse gas emissions, leading to a rate of warming unprecedented in human history.

>Is it more or less valid than my criteria?
Yes, you just cherrypicked irrelevant points in time at which the temperature peaked as your starting point. There is no reason to care that the Earth has been cooling since the last El Nino, this is a common occurrence. There is no reason to care that the Earth has been cooling since the Azolla event, which is a timescale irrelevant to humanity. Not to mention that the we are currently burning only over a few hundred years all of the fossil fuels that accumulated over the millions of years following the Azolla event. It's quite ironic for you to talk about the cooling after the Azolla event while ignoring that we are reversing the exact mechanism that caused that cooling and allowed for our species to evolve and survive.

>>9707649
Interesting points, you are right. We should be burning through more carbon to make the earth even more energy rich. We have always designed the environment around us. It's time we take that to the next level and reduce the loss in economy from winters.

>>9707650
Of course, if we don't like it we can just use dimming geoengineering. What matters is that the West, Europe, Canada, USA, etc benefit tremendously from such warming. We just need to align our border security with not allowing in more people and it's a net win.

In any case, carbon sequestration will alleviate any problems that might arise. On the topic of extinctions we can just store DNA samples from as many species as possible and stop worrying about it.

>>9707650
>>9707652
you people are insane. I truly have to wonder what kind of upbringing produces such reckless hubris, and disregard for anything beyond your own selfish ends. is it genetic? or were you intentionally abused as children to make you tougher?

>>9707650
Yes, I can't wait to return to the early Paleozoic when all land was barren.

>>9707650
>>9707652

i didnt say you are retarded, but that is essentially what it boils down to...

>>9707604
We do not need models to prove man made climate change. I listed for you 9 reasons why we know the planet is warming and that man is responsible and none use models.

>>9707649
>>9707525

The problem I have with the climate change theory is the same that many people have. For one, the climate is way to complicated to model properly and so many assumptions are made that you might as well pull a rabbit out of a hat and use that to make the models.

The real problem I have with it is all the theories about what happens when the planet warms.
>NO MORE ICE
>EVERYTHING NEAR THE TROPICS IS DEAD
>TINY ZONES OF LIFE NEAR THE POLES
>EVERYTHING IS FLOODED AND GONE
>EVERYTHING IS A DESERT
>EVERYTHING IS 1000000X MORE EXTREME

These claims have 0 base and a just fear mongering tactics used to push a political agenda and get funding. In reality, humanity has prospered during warm periods and if anything, warming is actually great for the population. The end of many great civilizations was brought about by global cooling causing crop failure and many kingdoms rose during warm periods.

The other problem I have with this theory is that it takes away from actual, immediate problems that are occurring with the oceans. Trash and other pollution, not carbon dioxide and methane, are the major problems at the moment. No, ocean acidification is not caused by CO2 nearly as much as it is caused by NOx and other heavily man-made acids derived from fertilizers. These are things no one even tries to fix, meanwhile they have fucking massive summits on CO2 bullshit. It's like saying that the cause of your ship sinking is a small leak in the faucet because you can see it dripping water while there is a giant hole in the hull right behind you.

>>9707665
It is not too complicated. Why do you think it's too complicated?

And none of those theories are supported by scientists. Where did they come from?

>>9707525
I didn't make an argument. I already said I don't dispute AGW.

>You question is: What evidence would we need to show that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Actually my question is more like, what evidence would we need to show that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. There can exist evidence that could contradict the heliocentric model, so the model is falsifiable, so it is scientific, in that regard at least.

That's all. Trying to eliminate falsifiability from science turns it into not-science. This is a basic tenet of empiricism.

>>9707665
>For one, the climate is way to complicated

stopped reading there
*too complicated

people's opinions are not valid when they are unable to pass grade 9 english

>>9707661
>People crying about human altering environment
>Why do you think humans can just alter their environment!!!!

Your own point
- humans alter earth environment

your own point
- Humans can't alter earth environment, what hubris!

get yourself sorted out

>>9707668
Ok, well you have 9 things that would have to happen to overturn it. Go nuts

>>9707669
and i doubt this is the first time this person has been corrected on misspelling the word too. and it wont be the last. this person does not read books, and is not intelligent enough to learn the difference.

>>9707671
humans alter their environment when they shit in their drinking water too - that doesnt make it a good thing

>>9707674
Industrialization was the worst thing ever. Fucking retard humans. Wish we just lived correctly by being primitive forever.

Oh god, the temp warmed a little, life is over on earth, we are all burning up now. Good thing we have no ways to solve it and now we all gonna die.

Or maybe there are already simple enough solutions in the geo engineering space and the fear is overblown just like all other intellectual doomsday events like the population bomb.

fuck yourself retard, seriously, you fucks should be banned from public discourse and stuck on some shit cult farm for fapping about doomsday shit. Fucking global warming is the biggest fucking crock of horse shit.

>>9707665
The CMIP models have been accurate for decades, so your premise is wrong. The climate is very complicated, but that doesn't mean climatologists can't figure certain things out, like how much warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This is based on very solid chemistry and physics and corroborated by direct observation of the atmosphere via radiative spectroscopy. There is no way to get around the fact that the warming caused by human emissions is about the same as the total observed warming of the Earth. If there is some alternative to that fact I suggest you find the evidence for it and publish it. Until then I'll trust actual climatologists over a random 4chan poster or an old physicist talking outside of his area of expertise.

>guys if you all go vegan
>invest in solar panels for your mansion
>only ride private jets and yachts

You can be like climate change nuts. Contributing 100x the normal average American to climate change while jet setting for awareness about it.

Let's raise "awareness" that we need to hurt average americans for the glory of bogus shit. Fucking low IQ climate nuts should be euthanized. The biggest crime they commit is not being at all reasonable or open minded about it and outlawing all counter thought including geoengineering solutions.

"The earth will be fire"
"No we can't do that geo-engineering solution because who knows what might happen!"

Stupid fucking cultists, eat shit. The earth is cooling faggots.

>>9707674
I'm pretty ignorant on the science so that is actually what I wanted. I've got nothing to add here.

I have one other question. When I see the two sides argue (yes yes I know one side is right and the other is dumb), I see people make arguments like OP which is something like, "the last two winters have bucked the trend, so where's your global warming now." Not particularly convincing. The reply is often, "on the geological timescale it's insignificant." Fine.

Speaking strictly in that case, like I described, why is it then valid to argue (not saying you are, I mean generally by anyone if it is at all) that the last 8 or 10 or whatever summers are the hottest on record (maybe 150 years?), when geologically this isn't all that much more relevant than some blip of a cold trend.

Again, not trying to argue against global warming. But that particular back and forth, to an outsider observing, does appear to be a bit of flawed logic (applicable to both sides).

>>9707678
>accurate for dedades

HAHAHAHHAHAHA

96% of models are well over observed temperatures.

>>9707684
meant for>>9707672

>The models are extremely over-temperature

How is that accurate?

If it was reasonable due to variance it wouldn't be 96% of models being over temperature

The bias is fucking obvious. The shitty models are obvious. Even the data collecting itself is manipulated to get higher numbers. It's a crock of shit through and through.

Oh look, it's THIS thread again. Sage and move on.
>hey libruls, you can't even predict the results of a single coin flip! how are we supposed to believe that you can predict the results of A THOUSAND coin flips?

>>9706094
>The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide … is to make the planet greener, [by] feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds [and] increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests.
this kinda shit is why bioscientists can't stand physicists.
that statement makes perfect sense so long as you don't gather any evidence to actually test it. in the real world, with complex emergent effects, CO2 doesn't do shit for most plants, since they're limited by iron, phosphate, or nitrate. increased CO2 concentrations can even be actively detrimental to some types of phytoplankton due to ocean acidification.

>>9706124
>>9707485
/thread

>>9706211
Not An Argument (tm)

>>9707604
>all models must include and account for anything we might invent or decide to do in the next few centuries
>just modeling the factors currently in play isn't good enough
commit kakuro

>>9707686
>>9707691
aaand [citation fucking needed]
(deliberately misaligning model traces to measured temperatures on the same plot so that they look like they overestimate warming doesn't count, by the way.)

>>9707667

There are too many variables that feed into the system. In addition to this, the system is beyond nonlinear with many relations and dynamics not well understood because there has not been sufficient time to observe repeatability and come up with adequate models. Essentially, its like trying to estimate the steady state response of a function (increasing co2) when you are in a transient without knowledge of what lies in front of you and the knowledge gathered from behind you is from secondary or tertiary sources.

>And none of those theories are supported by scientists.
I hear this shit parroted all the time at my uni by professors, scientists, and students alike. They all say that we are going to die in X number of years because of XYZ caused by AGW.

I do know a lot of this shit gets pushed by the left because it furthers their agenda of state control over private property and a lot of stupid shit gets said (no ice by 2015 etc). The part that bothers me is when anyone, regardless of credentials, comes out with a theory against it, they get ripped apart, have their funding cut, and have massive character assassination campaigns run against them. Science isn't a field where 'consensus wins' because otherwise you can create artificial consensus by attacking those that come out against your theory and essentially forcing only one opinion to be 'scientifically accepted'. If you want to do research on the climate, the only way to get funding is if you support AGW theory through it. If your results come back disproving it, well there goes your funding for next year and your credentials get washed down the toilet.

If the theory wasnt politicized, didn't offer massive gains to one political ideology, didn't create massive amounts of fear mongering, was more repeatable and consistent, and didn't have sketchy data 'adjustments' I would be more onboard.

>>9707686
>96% of models are well over observed temperatures.
[citation needed]

>inb4 this piece of crap https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

>>9707693
>that statement makes perfect sense so long as you don't gather any evidence to actually test it
This
"Oxygen is what humans breathe therefore the higher the oxygen content in the atmosphere the better it must be better for humans." Only works if you know literally nothing about the human body.

>>9707693
>>9707693
>that statement makes perfect sense so long as you don't gather any evidence to actually test it. in the real world, with complex emergent effects, CO2 doesn't do shit for most plants, since they're limited by iron, phosphate, or nitrate. increased CO2 concentrations can even be actively detrimental to some types of phytoplankton due to ocean acidification.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

WONG BITCH WRONG

>muh cherry picked climate nut experiments with bullshit environments and specimens

Actual DATA shows rise in global photosynthesis.

>>9707669
>>9707673
>.t literal retards

>>9707704
the earth is going to melt like ice cream into the sun

thanks to global warming!

>>9706079
>None of this argues against global warming.
literally the first sentence of the third paragraph of that article

>>9707699
>There are too many variables that feed into the system.
Wrong, there are only a few sources of radiative forcing.

>In addition to this, the system is beyond nonlinear with many relations and dynamics not well understood because there has not been sufficient time to observe repeatability and come up with adequate models.
Most of it is well understood by climatologists and the models are accurate enough so that we know what we don't understand has little effect. Are you just ignorant of climatology or are you deliberately lying about it?

>I hear this shit parroted all the time at my uni by professors, scientists, and students alike.
So your problem with climate change theory is something that climatologists don't even say. Sounds like a pathetic strawman argument to me.

>If you want to do research on the climate, the only way to get funding is if you support AGW theory through it. If your results come back disproving it, well there goes your funding for next year and your credentials get washed down the toilet.
This is the same thing every quack says about evolution, vaccines, the shape of the Earth, etc. You're in good company. In reality the reason none of the "skeptic" research gets published in a real journal is because it is always shitty research motivated by political bias. Any climatologist would instantly become famous if they disproved global warming. Problem is, it's not possible to disprove something that's true.

>If the theory wasnt politicized
It's very politicized by /pol/tards like you. That is the only reason you disagree with climatologists, because it's politically convenient for you.

>>9707722
why aren't the models accurate?

>>9707724
Why do you think they aren't?

>>9707707
>Actual DATA says you're wrong!
>I'm not gonna post any actual data though, just take my word for it!
if I had a nickel for every time a denier told me that the data said something but then had no actual citations to back up their claims...well, I could buy myself a candy bar.

>>9707669
that would include Einstein then

>>9707759
>Einstein
>Opinion
I think you are making a grave mistake if you think we care about Einsteins opinions rather than what can be verified mathematically and scientifically.

>>9707796
my point was, being able to spell doesn't make a genius and i daresay there is many a dyslexic person clever than you mr aggressive-pants

>>9707809
They aren't in this thread.

>>9707811
just bored with elitists

>>9706079
>dropped 0.56°C
>Big Chill
???

>>9707818
>There are idiots on this board, in this thread that don't understand it wasn't a drop of 0.56°C but an AVERAGE DROP of 0.56°C
Why are you people here? You clearly aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to speak about it. And if your purpose of coming into this thread was to learn, you did a poor job.

>>9706079
The randomness of the climate almost makes it look as if Humans have zero effect on the climate.

>>9707830
>acid raid
>drought
>excess heat/sunlight
and I doubt really how much anthropogenic CO2 would help anyway

>>9707837
>acid rain
there is a difference between climate change and pollution. Know the difference.
>drought
There is a magical thing called the rain cycle. What do you think would happen if the average temperature were to rise slightly? Horrible drought? Or increase rainfall due to more water being evaporated.---The Sahara wasn't always a desert anon
>excess heat/sunlight
CO2 is horrible at being a greenhouse gas. If anything, Excessive CO2 in atmosphere would only act as more plant food and temporary raise the temperature, thus increasing precipitation.

>>9707830
>if plants are given plenty of fertilizer, more CO2 means more growth
>this proves that CO2 is just plant food, since all plants in the wild inhabit rich soil with iron, nitrate, and phosphate in excess.

>>9707845
>What do you think would happen if the average temperature were to rise slightly? Horrible drought? Or increase rainfall due to more water being evaporated.
Warming expands the Hadley cells, causing subtropical deserts to expand to higher latitudes. A worldwide increase in rainfall doesn't mean that everywhere gets more rain.
This shit is introductory level climatology.
>CO2 is horrible at being a greenhouse gas. If anything, Excessive CO2 in atmosphere would only act as more plant food and temporary raise the temperature, thus increasing precipitation.
Of course extra CO2 doesn't have bad effects! That's why 252 million years ago, the Earth was a lush paradise, not an aridity-stricken hellscape with drought-scorched land and bacteria-choked seas.

>>9707862
Does your mother know that you are a cunt?

>>9707890
>I don't have any arguments so I'm just gonna call names
hey, you see that near-vertical spike during the late Permian? 90%+ of all animal life went extinct then as a result of rapid climate change.
nothing to worry about, right?

>>9707890
also:
>y-axis? what's a y-axis? we don't need any units!
>time to try and read a slope off of a graph with a changing x-axis scale
>make sure the unlabeled y-axis scale changes randomly too because fuck it, the entire purpose of this graph is obfuscation
>downplay concerns about modern changes by referring to a graph that doesn't even show the past century on it.
>make sure to misspell shit just to demonstrate ignorance of the subject matter

congratulations, that's the most retarded figure I've seen all year. I hope your offspring look like gremlins, assuming you ever breed.

>>9707862
>since all plants in the wild inhabit rich soil with iron, nitrate, and phosphate in excess.
and have perfect optimal water at all times :^)

>>9707890
>Human race existed for 0.1 on this scale
Having a mars-sized object hitting earth is normal if you take a long enough time.
No worries m8, it happened before
No need to worry about a fire honey, see here I have many many pictures of burned houses.

>>9707901
>Using Permian-Triassic extinction to validate human induced climate changed
>Extinction event caused by asteroid impact/super volcanoes
boi

>>9708031
>so what if CO2 emissions caused the most devastating mass extinction in the planet's history? that CO2 came from VOLCANOES!
>surely CO2 put out by human activity couldn't do anything bad. it's only the volcanic stuff we have to worry about!
this is what deniers actually believe.

also, there's no credible evidence for the Permo-Triassic Extinction being caused by an impactor. you're thinking of the Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction.

Warming fools are going to get obliterated when the earth cools to below 1950's levels. We are in a cooling cycle now.

>>9707743
The data doesn't match up with reality. They can't predict for shit. They do a vague upward trend and call it a day while missing cooling and warming periods.

It's like someone saying "Winter will be colder"

well.. what a prediction jackass.

>>9707830
Yeah I can't wait for the energy-rich earth they predict. I hope warming nuts are correct, even though they won't be. Would be rad having more food, more freshwater, and more energy.

>>9708057
How in the fuck can anyone be so retarded that CO2 emissions from super fucking volcanoes

The flood basalt eruptions that produced the Siberian Traps constituted one of the largest known volcanic events on Earth and covered over 2,000,000 square kilometres (770,000 sq mi) with lava. - Wikipedo

Is comparable to man made carbon emissions?

>>9708090
As a matter of fact, it is.
The total amount of CO2 emitted by the Siberian Traps volcanic episode has been estimated at 6-20 x 10^16 mol, or 2.6-8.8 trillion tons CO2.
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/GL017i009p01299
Since we're putting out about 35 billion tons a year, that equates to 75-250 years' worth of current emissions. And remember, it took about a WHOLE MILLION years for the Siberian LIP to put that into the atmosphere.

So yeah, very comparable. Dumbfucks like you have this idea of volcanoes as being these monstrous things beyond human compare, but it turns out that when it comes to CO2 emissions, humans are the best at pumping it out.

>>9706079
What is op talking about?

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/
2017 was again another record breaking hot year, and this summer will likely be the same.

Comparing feburary 2018 to feburary 1998 is meaningless and is not a predictor of the future.

>>9708125
Results of a model designed to estimate the effects of increased CO2 on climate and ocean chemistry suggest that increases in atmospheric pCO2 due to Deccan Traps CO2 emissions would have been less than 75 ppm, leading to a predicted global warming of less than 1°C over several hundred thousand years. We conclude that the direct climate effects of CO2 emissions from the Deccan eruptions would have been too weak to be an important factor in the end‐Cretaceous mass extinctions.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/GL017i009p01299

Look at me, I can be a nigger too!

>>9708156
Nice non sequitur

>>9707153
Except you can say with certainty that continued destruction of the environment will have a negative outcome and you cant say with certainty that technology will solve all our problems. Moreover it isnt the case that changing the way generate power and manufacture goods = economic loss.

In the case of China, India, or any of the other developing powers ok fine they dont already have an economic base. In the case of the west and now China as well its actually retarded to continue as we are in every arena of thought. People need to realize that the constant expansion and exploitation western society is based on is fundamentally unstable and needs to be changed.

>>9707890
Does your mother know you are a willfully ignorant idiot who misinterprets data and then parrots your unfounded conclusions? Youve never taken a stats class in your life, nor are you educated in the biosphere.

>>9708212
commie

>>9706079
>March 2018 also had the highest monthly temperature departure from average since July 2017. The March global land and ocean surface temperature has increased 0.08°C (0.14°F) per decade since 1880. That rate is more than double since 1980.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201803

March 2018 was the 5th warmest land and sea average on record, with the highest being 2 years ago, in 2016. It was the 135th coldest on record, with the coldest being 120 years ago, back in 1898. Nobody alive today has experienced a record low march. The warmest march on record before 2016 was in 2010. The warmest before that? 2002. Americans who can just legally drive and can't even legally vote yet have already experienced 3 record breaking warmest marches on record, while not a single person alive today has experienced a record coolest march. I wonder why more people are concerned with the warming than with any cooling.

I picked march because latest data available.

When we start consistently breaking record coolest months, then we can worry about some chilling.

>>9706168
>Listen to us
>The climate is not changing
>Everything is exactly the same as always

>>9707634
>If I only look at the time scales that support my view, the conclusion is obvious: I am correct
Wow, you're so smart, you should become a scientist!

>>9706079
go fuck yourself, the last winter was considerably hotter than the one before, where I live

>>9708073
>The data doesn't match up with reality.
Which data?

>They can't predict for shit.
Who?

>They do a vague upward trend and call it a day while missing cooling and warming periods.
There has been a warming tend over the last century due to human emissions increasing radiative forcing. The tentative going up or down within that trend is simply the result of natural variability on shorter timescales, mostly the result of the El Nino/La Nina cycle. Climatologists have not ignored this, you just ate grossly ignorant of climatology. Stop lying about it.

>It's like someone saying "Winter will be colder"
It's like you don't understand anything about what you're trying to discuss. Increasing greenhouse emissions will continue to cause rapid warming on the scale of centuries, causing many problems for human civilization. This is simply well-evidenced scientific fact.

>>9707689
I think I understand the question now. You're asking:

How do we know this isn't natural forcing? 150 years isn't enough time to discover trends out of the statistical mean for natural causes.

This was the argument from when Svante Arrhenius first proposed that CO2 could become a driver of climate if enough of it was released into the atmosphere as an industrial byproduct back in the 19th century and wasn't clearly answered until the 1990s.

We began collecting data clear back into the 1950s on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and have global temperature records going back about 150 years from the British Empire.

Additionally we have paleoclimate records though secondary sources. Some very accurate ones include Foraminifera, a type of microscopic life which changes the orientations of their shells based on temperature. We can literally use the little suckers as a thermometer any time they're found in ocean cores and rock fossils.

We can also take cores of the sea floor to find out exactly how far the ice cap has spread in the past. The sediment under ice is very different than the sediment under open ocean. We have accurate records of the ice cap going back millions of years. This is a very good indicator of global temperature (Hint, it has never been smaller in the entire Quaternary)

As temperature continued to rise through the industrial age the amount of warming rose out of the statistical average for expected natural causes. Basically in the 1990s the debate was ending that mankind was causing climate change because the rate of warming has never been seen in hundreds of millions of years of Earth's geological history. Climate change this fast would have catastrophic effects on the environment (Hint, it is) which would have easily been seen in the geological record of the Earth.

Does that help answer your question?

Alternative facts exist

>>9708569
"Alternative facts" aka falsehoods that I wish to believe.

>>9708353
red line was 50/50.
Your models suck ass.

>>9708789
science isnt consensus, youre thinking of scientism you cult faggot. peer review process isnt foolproof and mainstream science journals often have political agendas. figure it out.

im not even taking a position on this issue. im just here to defend the idea that mainstream facts arent always true. dont be a cult follower of scientism

>>9708514
Not same person but not really.
So you have two sources for past temperature that's not actual measurements so far, but have you checked how reliable they are? Or rather, what prevents information loss in these two sources? You mentioned sediment below ice cap, but as ice caps are concentrated around the poles are they good indicators of global climate models? Similarly, is the footprint of foraminifera global - at the very least, covering all ocean bodies? Moreover, Do the two sources agree to within a reasonable tolerance in a range where the data is actually useful (if I have a ruler that measures to half an inch I might as well not have one at all, but if climate records are only good to half a degree I'm supposed to buy it)?
I'm not asking for a wayback machine, but I do expect the same amount of caution as you would put into safety inspection at the very least.

>>9707845
>not knowing that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations causes all of those things

>>9708798
>science isnt consensus
Thank you for once again illustrating your utter ignorance /pol/tard. A scientific consensus simply means that essentially all of the published research leads to a certain conclusion. Any scientific fact exists only because a consensus showed it to be one. Stop pretending like you understand anything about what you're talking about, you pathetic liar.

>im not even taking a position on this issue. im just here to defend the idea that mainstream facts arent always true.
The only reason you know former facts weren't true is because they were disproved and supplanted by current facts. So into that happens with global warming, I suggest you shut the fuck up.

>any facts I don't like can be ignored by shouting muh scientistism
>Gravity? Muh scientism
>Vaccines don't cause autism? Muh scientism
>Evolution? Muh scientism
Fag.

>>9708791
>50/50 that we would experience warming faster than anything in human history
You are one delusional little twit aren't you?

>>9708857
You're getting beyond my means of an educated response but all the work you are looking for has been done.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data

>>9708980
The only thing your attrocious models got right was that the temperature went up, it failed beyond that.

>>9709093
CMIP (standard model of the IPCC) projection from 15 years ago

>>9706079
>Intense Global Cooling Since 2016
This PROVES global warming!

Sorry, I was channelling Bill Nye there for a second.

>>9709193
Liar.

>>9709206
>Muh Christy graph that has been debunked 1000 times
You are scum.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>9709193
That's not accurate. If you showed me the hindcast, and I drew a simple trend line, I'd be just as accurate.

Accurate means they actually have predictive power and would match the data. If a 5 year old could draw a line just as predictive it doesn't count.

This is why there should be a IQ lower limit for scientific research. and consensus.

>>9709193
So like, the only accurate part is matching to the hindcast. Hindcast it matches some of the data. In the forecast it matches NONE.

This is the biggest joke.. how the fuck do people fall for this shit? "We can predict climate!" "Look an average of our data sort of matches up with an average of the real data, but we catch 0 swings.

It's like doing a yearly weather forecast and saying "On average next year it will 'x degrees". That's not an accurate weather forecast.

The actual forecasts miss every cooling and warming period.

>>9709460
>>9709464
>shown forecast that accurately predicts temperature trend
>loudly insist that it doesn't actually because /pol/acks can't cope with actual evidence

>>9709464
>That's not an accurate weather forecast.
No shit, they're not trying to forecast the weather.

>Look an average of our data sort of matches up with an average of the real data, but we catch 0 swings.
A long-term forecast is accurate on the long term, but fails to reproduce short-term noise? Who could have possibly guessed?!

>>9706132
Holy shit you are mad.

>>9709460
>That's not accurate. If you showed me the hindcast, and I drew a simple trend line, I'd be just as accurate.
>Accurate means they actually have predictive power and would match the data.
The decadal trend is linear, so your argument is that it's not accurate because it's accurate. You are retarded.

>>9709464
>"Look an average of our data sort of matches up with an average of the real data, but we catch 0 swings.
Can you tell me what those "swings" are? Because if you actually knew anything, you would be able to see why this demand makes 0 sense. I'll wait for you to google the answer so you can learn something.

>It's like doing a yearly weather forecast and saying "On average next year it will 'x degrees". That's not an accurate weather forecast.
No, it's a climate forecast. Climate is the average of weather over space and time. Why the fuck do I have to keep explaining what the fucking climate is to people attempting to talk about the climate? It's like if you tried to tell me your opinion on science fiction and I had to stop you to explain to you what a book is, because you aren't talking about books.

>>9710166
>Average of weather over space and time
>not close to accurate over yearly

it's a shit predictive model

>>9710333
Interannual trends are not due to radiative forcing, this has nothing to do with what CMIP is predicting.

I'll tell you the answer since you couldn't even Google it despite your vast knowledge of climatology: ENSO. Now tell me what ENSO is.

Can a /pol/tard learn science? Has this experiment ever been carried out before?

>>9710340
retard. Look at the hindcast of the CMIP3 model. Notice how they have fitted it to actual data and it matches up with certain cooling and warming variations.

Notice how on the forecast it never does?

A fucking 5 year old kid could draw a just as accurate line prediction of their complicated forecast model. It proves and shows nothing. It is not better than 30 IQ fucking prediction applied to the known data.

>>9706160
>hahahahahhahahhahaha
Mom let the hyaena use her computer again.

The fact the earth is cooling seems to piss off a lot of people who can't accept reality. Look at the data. Science is science. The Earth is cooling.

In 3-4 years after another El Nino that would break some more temperature records, some idiots will argue "see it cooled after previous year it means there is no AGW"
I am pretty sure articles like that existed in late 90-th, mid 2000 etc, maybe even earlier.

>>9710574
>The fact the earth is cooling seems to piss off a lot of people who can't accept reality.
No, YOU are the one denying reality. Nobody here is denying that global average surface temperature was cooler in March 2018 than March 2016, they're trying to explain to you that picking two months separated by two years doesn't make a significant trend.

>Look at the data.
Please do. The actual trend is clearly visible.

>>9710620
As long as Alabama stays above sea level I don't care brah

>>9710351
>retard. Look at the hindcast of the CMIP3 model. Notice how they have fitted it to actual data and it matches up with certain cooling and warming variations.
You are one smart individual. It matches with "some" variations. Specifically it dips at 1982 and 1991. Now here's your second homework assignment. What happened I those two years that causes a radiative forcing?

And where is your first homework asdignment about ENSO? I'm going to have to mark it down as late. I'm going to give you an F if I don't see it next class, so don't forget both homework assignments.

>>9710351
>A fucking 5 year old kid could draw a just as accurate line prediction of their complicated forecast model. It proves and shows nothing. It is not better than 30 IQ fucking prediction applied to the known data.
So climate "skeptics" must have less than 30 IQ.

>muh cooling!

This is how dumb OP is.

>>9710620
>No, YOU are the one denying reality. Nobody here is denying that global average surface temperature was cooler in March 2018 than March 2016, they're trying to explain to you that picking two months separated by two years doesn't make a significant trend.

1880 - 2020

Do Eocene to 2020 fucktard. 1880-2020 is for low IQ and stupid people.

>>9710822
shitbrains. You lack the IQ to process reality.

>hurr we captured the phenomena in hindsight data so of course our model is accurate
>ignore that we miss it every time in our forecast

the disjoint between the two is important. It's pretty easy to come up with a model that predicts WW1 and WW2. IF the same model misses WW3 it's not a good one.

>>9711925
Here we see the data

Over the past 40 million years, 400 ppm is lower than average.

We are in a cool earth period. Also it's almost like you guys think no 3rd party is secretly injecting fuck tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere

Going to look so fucking dumb soon.

>Guys I drank the global warming earth boils over propaganda
>look I can repeat "science science science"

fucking shit for brains people ITT.

>the consensus models by bias low IQ people work though!
>except in predicting the future to any decent degree
hahahahhahahahahhahahaha

>>9710931
>I cherry picked my graph
>you can't cherry pick your graph

What a fucking debate model. You get to cherry pick and bullshit data to fit your views, but your opponents can't.

Why?

Because the consensus of low IQ shitbrain scientists said so. Amazing. I wish you lobotomized your daughters in the 1940s because of consensus.

>This has never happened before
>our predictive models get updated every year so we can trot out the latest one and say it fits the data
>our hindcast works though
>oh who cares if we miss large changes that are happening year to year
>100 year period is perfect and we won't bring up historical low carbon and coldest earth
the absolute state of climate nuts.

>>9711928
>hurr we captured the phenomena in hindsight data so of course our model is accurate
What phenomena did they capture though? Do your homework assignments and you'll find out.

>ignore that we miss it every time in our forecast
There hasn't been one since 1991, so there was nothing to miss.

Here's a reminder:

1. What is ENSO? You failed to turn in the assignment even after being given help, you get an F on this one.

2. What occurred in 1982 and 1991 that changed Earth's radiative forcing? You didn't turn in this assignment yet, it's late.

It's starting to look like /pol/tards can't learn science.

>>9711925
You're retarded. See >>9707649

>>9711932
>Over the past 40 million years, 400 ppm is lower than average.
Over the past 40 million years, humanity has not existed on average. So we should be OK with that?

>We are in a cool earth period.
Not only are we in it, it's the only climate we have ever know, and it's the climate that allowed us to exist. Are you human? No, you appear to be some kind of dumb fucking animal from millions of years ago, according to what you post.

>>9711943
>last two years? cool and good
>entire instrumental record? HURR IT'S CHERRY-PICKED
>projecting this hard

>>9711943
>I cherry picked my graph
>you can't cherry pick your graph
I didn't pick anything. All I did was make a graph from the same data OP was using. If you think OP's choice of datapoints was dumb, you're agreeing with me.

>>9712288
>nothing to miss
>missed largest climate swing in 120 years

>>9712291
You didn't actually make any points. The choice of 1880 as a starting point is no more valid than 2016 or 40,000,000 years ago.

If we are looking for the impact of humans on the climate in the future we would need a predictive model of human technologies.

In addition we would need to look at historical carbon, of which we can see the earth existed at higher levels and we are at a cool point.

Using a singular example: 1880-2016 doesn't support any argument. The reason being is that there are too many contributions that we don't model or don't understand. Hence the same predictive models not capturing huge swings in the predictions.

They can't predict anything. The predictions fail, hence from that we can understand their understanding of global temp is shit.

>>9712594
40,000,000 years ago to today
- cooling

2 years ago to today
- cooling

I picked both a long and short time span.

>>9712710
Loud noise is still just noise.

>>9712716
>The choice of 1880 as a starting point is no more valid than 2016 or 40,000,000 years ago.
The choice of 1880 as a starting point is CONSIDERABLY more valid if what you are trying to capture is climatic changes that will affect human civilization on timescales between decades and centuries.

>>9712717
You picked two timescales that are irrelevant.

>>9712716
>The choice of 1880 as a starting point is no more valid than 2016 or 40,000,000 years ago.
1880 is the start of the instrumental record. Any later than that, and we're artificially shortening the span of the data series. Any earlier and we're stitching two kinds of data (direct measurement and temperature proxy) together, which has its own issues of calibration.
>If we are looking for the impact of humans on the climate in the future we would need a predictive model of human technologies.
No, you retard, we don't. Climate models predict what will happen if we continue current behavior. Some also predict what will happen if, say, we reduce our emissions by a certain percent, or increase albedo by some factor. We don't need to KNOW what tech we will develop to know what the IMPACT of different strategies will be.
>we would need to look at historical carbon
and when we do, we see that CO2 remained fairly steady over the past few thousand years and suddenly shot up around the end of the Industrial Revolution
>there are too many contributions that we don't model or don't understand
ah yes, the eternal refrain of U CANT KNO NUFFIN
>The predictions fail
you can say this all you want, but that won't make it true. failing to capture year-scale fluctuations does not constitute failure when the decadal trend is accurately modeled. >>9709193

>>9712720
it must hurt knowing you are wrong and climate nuts are just a doomsday cult at this point. The 2 year period of cooling since 2016 was not predicted by the doomsdayers, wonder why?

>>9712734
It's meaningless, the 2 year period is just as valid on planetary time scale. If they had predicted the climate accurately it might be a vaild thing. A 2 year old is equally as accurate as their modeling.

>>9712734
>failing to capture year-scale fluctuations does not constitute failure when the decadal trend is accurately modeled

It's not though. You trot out new models every year. If we go back 20 years the model all fail. If we go back 10 years all the models of the time fail. It's based on taking the latest model,. which fits in hindsight, and has a pointy line along the trend. Literally baby tier predictions.

>>9712740
>the 2 year period is just as valid on planetary time scale
this is a shitty attempt at technobabble.
not only is the 2 year period an artificial truncation of a single data series, it's too short to eliminate seasonal variation (which is an extremely strong signal on this planet).
you are grasping for excuses to throw out the past ~120 years of evidence showing you wrong.

>>9712744
see >>9710864
the IPCC FAR prediction dates to 1990; SAR dates to 1996. both are still accurately modeling the modern warming trend. more recent models are modeling it a little better, but the older models still work.

Let's look at the IPCC FAR predictions

Oh, they sucked fat cock. what a surprise.

Let's look at a prediction from 2009

Oh, it's kind of sort in line with reality because it only had to predict some small number of years and is combined with bias temperature reporting.

>>9712740
>it must hurt knowing you are wrong and climate nuts are just a doomsday cult at this point.
There we go. The "you secretly think I'm right" argument. That NEVER fails to convince people.

>The 2 year period of cooling since 2016 was not predicted by the doomsdayers, wonder why?
Because it's noise. The predictions are for the trend, not what happens year-to-year.

>It's meaningless, the 2 year period is just as valid on planetary time scale.
A "planetary time scale" is completely irrelevant here. Why do you keep bringing up these nonsense scales?

>If they had predicted the climate accurately it might be a vaild thing.
They have. See the CMIP3 prediction in >>9709193 . You just don't like it.

>>9712744
>You trot out new models every year.
We're reaching creationist-tier arguments now.

>If we go back 20 years the model all fail. If we go back 10 years all the models of the time fail.
That's simply wrong. The IPCC AR1 has a pretty good prediction in it (besides the uncertainty about aerosol forcing), and that that's more than 25 years old. Hell, Hansen's predictions from thirty years ago hold up surprisingly well.

>>9712777
>IPCC FAR predicts 2.78 C/century
Apparently, climate change dentists never run out of lies.

>>9709193
>>9712780
My stock model prediction is amazing

It's going to go slightly up along the average trend it did for the past 100 years

>wow it's so amazing!

climate nuts have no intelligence. You still don't get that the models are not more accurate than a simple trend line from the past 70 years.

> 0.5 c degree increase / 100 years
starting in 1800-1850
before massive carbon release
linear trend change since before industrialization would effect it

COINCIDES perfect with little ice age that ended in early 1800

>but our advanced models work so well at kind of predicting an increase in temperature so we are right about everything

NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE LOW IQ MORONS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

>global warming is proved because the temperature is very slightly rising.

imagine believing that.

Is there a consensus climate model from 1400-1850

no.

why?

because they cant predict climate.

>RUNAWAY
>RUNAWAY

yawn. It's odd that the late 1800s had about the same temp rise as late 1900s.

>>9712791
I'm not even sure you understand the posts you're responding too. Do you know what a "timescale" is?

>>9712795
>0.5 c degree increase / 100 years
>starting in 1800-1850
>before massive carbon release
>linear trend change since before industrialization would effect it
It's not even slightly linear though. The rate of warming is FAR higher in recent decades than it was in earlier ones. Look at HadCRUT, for instance.

>COINCIDES perfect with little ice age that ended in early 1800
It really doesn't though. The recent warming is faster than anything the "little ice age" could or has done. You're also ignoring the fact that the little ice age was primarily a local even, whereas the recent warming is global, or that the recent warming fits with the radiative forcing we can measure from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

In short - no.

>>9712820
>global warming is proved because the temperature is very slightly rising.
You really have no sense of scale, do you?
The current rate of warming is absurdly fast, far higher than anything known throughout the rest of the Holocence.

>>9712825
>It's odd that the late 1800s had about the same temp rise as late 1900s.
What? Where are you getting that from?

Looks like it's time to derail this shit show.

>>9712839
Source?

>>9712827
the time scale is too short, not enough data

Alongside the linear increase is a simple multi-decade oscillation. Fits data just as well as climate nut garbage

prediction of cooling/stalling beginning now is perfectly valid.

>>9712847
literally in the picture

>>9712839
if you admit we are recovering from a LIA you basically destroy half the climate nut argument

Tell the modelers to add in the linear warming trend since then to the models and before industrialization

To be a climate nut: RULES.

- 1880 through now is all of history
- we are entering in a new epoch no one can predict because carbon has never been this high ppm
- the little ace age didn't happen
- the fact zero climate models exist that work for 1400-1880 in any respect shouldn't bother you
- the models are perfect even though they are as accurate as a linear average trend
- don't question anything because we are saving the world

>>9706079
Global warming has probably been occurring for the last while largely due to human activity, and also we’re due to dip into that ice age.
Personally HYPE about the ice age and not very hype about swampworld with its nuclearly hot equator
Just 20,000 years ago during peak ice age the sea level was 125m lower than today. Can you imagine the dank archeology to be done?
Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old. Who knows what’s buried beneath the waves.

Have another fags

>>9712880
Higher temp earth is better overall. Heating costs far more energy than cooling. Not to mention other factors that make a hot world better.

It's really an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of industrialization and resetting the clock on an upcoming ice age.

>>9712889
But muh archeology

>>9712887
Do it again Milankovitch

>>9712887
Who up for 8 degrees of global cooling? Preferably in 6 months.

You’re welcome

>>9712921
>But muh archeology
Can still do it under the sea.

>>9712940
It’s kind of a larp anyway, but I sincerely look forward to the possibility of humanity seeing an ice age that draws back the sea and lets us know what was going down during the last one, or perhaps even the one before that.
Not seeing it atm with underwater archeology, though I could be wrong.

>>9712923
Tell me I'm a dirty girl

>>9712973
The time. Assuming we dont all die technology will advance. The time we have good underwater archeology tech is much closer than the time it would take for an ice age to manifest.

>>9713040
This isn't between 1880 and 2100. I don't see anything at all.

>>9712710
Well it's official, /pol/tards can't learn science, they just ignore it.

>missed largest climate swing in 120 years
Again, this is just random noise caused by ENSO. You are conflating two different things, temperature swings caused by ENSO and major volcanic eruptions in the hindcast. The latter significantly effects radiative forcing, so CMIP shows it. You could have easily figured this out by researching what you're talking about, but instead you made a fool of yourself.

>>9712839
Why is the line at the end coloured red? You're not trying to pretend that's the recent warming, are you?

>>9712777
>Using false satellite data from 2014 on purpose
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

You are scum.

>>9712839
>95 years before 1950

>>9712857
>the time scale is too short, not enough data
Too short for what?

>Alongside the linear increase
What is causing the linear increase?

>is a simple multi-decade oscillation.
What is causing an oscillation?

>prediction of cooling/stalling beginning now is perfectly valid.
Predictions from curve fitting is not valid when you have a causative model that disagrees.

>>9712930
>You will starve if you don't eat, therefore being obese is good

The intense cooling period we are in is pretty exciting.

>>9713635
>consensus decision to """"revise""" the data higher

what a surprise. Keep in mind it goes on at all levels too. Imagine if we had reliable data instead of bias data, the climate nuts would look even dumber if that's possible.

>>9706441
using an incorrect metaphor like that only shows your ignorance on the subject. CC predictions have been invalid in both the change in CO2 concentrations and observed temperatures.

>>9713871
Yes, satellites' decaying orbits are part of the conspiracy too. Who's the nut job again?

>>9713881
>CC predictions have been invalid in both the change in CO2 concentrations and observed temperatures.
This has already been proven wrong in the thread, try again.

>>9713924
I'm just shocked it led to a rise in temp.

>>9713958
You're just reacting to the conclusion rather than the argument. This is the science board, why are you here?

>>9714060
This is an issue of tribal identity to him, not one of science. There's really no point trying to reason with him. As far as he's concerned, man-made climate change is something associated with "the other side," and because the other side must always be wrong, man-made climate change must be wrong.

>>9706079
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2015-volcanoes-eruptions

>>9712839
Quote from the author of the study, Richard Alley

>"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.

Also that dataset ends in 1850 and from one regional site in greenland. This is what it looks like if modern data were plotted on top

>>9708219
not that guy but why are you pretending to be something you're not by proxy. do you have a small penis?

>>9714208
The science is not convincing. The consensus is more a sign of the politics behind it than my criticism.

>>9714403
Of course the science isn't convincing for you, nothing would be. You decry "the politics behind it," but ultimately politics is the only refugee of your stubborn denial. Look around the world and you will find no scientific organizations of national or international standing that subscribe to your beliefs. The only place where your view still dominates is in the halls of political power, not any scientific institution.

>>9714424
>nothing would be
It's junk. I'm sorry the people have more sense than your shit for brains. Go scream into the wind how China and India should have remained poor you dumbfuck.

>>9714458
> It's junk. I'm sorry the people have more sense than your shit for brains
If it's so clearly junk that only someone with shit for brains could be deceived by it, then why haven't you already proven that it's junk?

> Go scream into the wind how China and India should have remained poor you dumbfuck.
That has no bearing on whether or not man-made climate change is true. That's an issue of what our reaction to it might be. The argument "people might do a bad thing if it's true, therefore it can't be true" doesn't hold up in the scientific world.

>>9714403
Your claims are not convincing. The only thing motivating them is your political ideology, not an understanding of the science.

>>9714394
Im a physicist not a life scientist, my level of expertise with stats is average at best and my knowledge of bio, chem, etc is garbage tier. Therefore I dont try to draw conclusions from data and methodology I dont understand. Any one basing a conclusion off of a single graph with no literature is a moron and needs to be treated like one.

>>9714403
>The science is not convincing
Says the scientifically illiterate guy.

>>9707188
>muh russian trolls
>muh right-wingers are SJWs

cmon son

>>9716204
>Youve never taken a stats class in your life, nor are you educated in the biosphere.
>Im a physicist not a life scientist
Please post a picture of your home library and access id to your work with timestamp I don't believe your larping my kid,

>>9706079
>(February to June 2016)
>(February to June 2017)
so it got cold in the winter and stopped in the summer?
Is this a troll?

I always regret opening these threads