/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10669828]

Wow, climate "scientists" have been trying to scam grant money for over a hundred years!

[Anonymous No.10669851]

>>10669828
I can’t tell if this is sarcastic from a denier or non-retard perspective.

[Anonymous No.10669858]

>>10669828
>"scientists"
Svante Arrhenius received the nobel prize for chemistry and is one of the founders of physical chemistry. Why would this guy need to scam grant money?

[Anonymous No.10669863]

>>10669828
Something that old is most likely a benign publication done in good faith with just some data. The modern malicious grand grifting started after the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.10669864]

>>10669851
sarcasm

[Anonymous No.10669874]

>>10669863
Interesting conspiracy theory. Where’s the evidence?

[Anonymous No.10669893]

>>10669874
I mean, I always say the same thing when one of you people asks the same question but I guess here we go again.

First of all, I'm a mathematician and I mosty dedicate myself to probability theory so every now and then it's fun to see what the "statisticians" are doing. Maybe this will give some credibility but this is the internet so I could just be a retard, so here's a quote from someone you can verify:

Freeman Dyson:
"[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere."

In other words, all climate models are complete bullshit and there has not been a single climate scientist who has ever tried to justify or "prove" why their model works. They just do it because right now it is very profitable to make up some bullshit and then publish. If you are in science you already know this, but researchers live and die by their yearly publications in terms of who gets promoted, etc. Making up some random bullshit climate model and then saying "WORLD END NOW" is a guaranteed publication because this is a "safe" hypothesis to push with little to no effort required on the part of the researcher.

I can actually prove their model doesn't work but I don't even know if you care and it is a bit technical (but not much) so if you actually care then if you give me a response to this post that shows some kind of intellectual awareness beyond a neanderthal, I will elaborate.

[Anonymous No.10669898]

>>10669893
imagine being this fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.10669904]

>>10669898
Well, I guess we devolved into Neanderthals. I guess that means I get to avoid having to write a couple of thousand words.

I'm sure Dyson will be very amused to know that some probably undergrad ignoramus is smarter than him.

[Anonymous No.10669906]

>>10669904
>muh appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.10669911]

>>10669906
I'm appealing to the veracity of his argument, brainlet. If you think he is wrong, show me a paper that proves that their model works, instead of just being data mangling

Here's a fact about climate science: They all make conclusions from their models, but none of them bother to prove that their models are accurate.

[Anonymous No.10669914]

>>10669911
>I'm appealing to the veracity of his argument
prove it.

[Anonymous No.10669928]

>>10669914
Not him but holy crap you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.10669932]

>>10669893
>so here's a quote from someone you can verify:

Quotes aren’t subject to the peer-review process and quotes from non-climatologists are worth even less.

>Freeman Dyson

Not a climatologist.

>In other words, all climate models are complete bullshit and there has not been a single climate scientist who has ever tried to justify or "prove" why their model works.

Your source for this is a quote from some old non-climatologist.

Weak.

>I can actually prove their model doesn't work

Literally who cares? Earth’s warming. We know why. We know what we’d have to do to compensate for this and counter it. Splitting hairs about how warm it’d be in 2030 or 2040 or 2060 is silly.

[Anonymous No.10669933]

>>10669914
Did you even read his argument you moron? Assuming you are aware of the current literature (and if you aren't then who knows why in the fuck you think you can even have an opinion), no model even attemps to correct for over-fitting. As Dyson points out, overfitting what is essentially a chemical system is completely pointless.

I mean, think of any multi-step chemical reaction and imagine you tried to do a model in one of the intermediate steps to predict the end.

[Anonymous No.10669938]

>>10669911
>I'm appealing to the veracity of his argument, brainlet. If you think he is wrong, show me a paper that proves that their model works, instead of just being data mangling

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.10669940]

>>10669911
>Here's a fact about climate science

Lie, you mean.

[Anonymous No.10669949]

>>10669933
>>10669940

[Anonymous No.10669953]

>>10669949
When you have no rebuttal, post a meme picture.
Works every time.

[Anonymous No.10669955]

>>10669933

[Anonymous No.10669957]

Whole lotta Asperger's in this thread

[Anonymous No.10669962]

I wonder if “””skeptic””” dude will have a rebuttal to a paper that shows that there are accurate models.

[Anonymous No.10669976]

I don't get how it's possible to make accurate predictions of the general trends of the climate when it's such a complex system. Seems to me that it runs into the same problem as economic modeling which is that it works until it suddenly doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10669981]

>>10669938
I mean, the most I can say regarding that is "cute". Those articles are right in everything they are saying so good for them, but the statistical problem I (and Dyson) have is that no model addresses black swans. So really that's why I can only say "cute" and nothing more, nothing less.

So to clarify myself, when I say "show me a paper that proves their model works" I mean to give a fundamental/theoretical reason for why their model works. Just sampling 15 models and saying "look guys some of these models have correctly predicted climate in the past few years!" to me is just more bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10670024]

>>10669981
>I mean, the most I can say regarding that is "cute".

The most I can say regarding you is “you just lost an argument and have now switched to trying to be condescending to shore up your ego.”

>Those articles are right in everything they are saying so good for them

This is a concession you are wrong. You claimed all models were “bullshit”. GG

>but the statistical problem I (and Dyson) have is that no model addresses black swans.

They can’t and aren’t supposed to. Any unexpected events will be taken into account when old models are modified and/or new ones created. Congrats on backpedaling.

>So to clarify myself, when I say "show me a paper that proves their model works" I mean to give a fundamental/theoretical reason for why their model works.

Some make estimates of albedo that are more in line with what is actual, others overestimate or underestimate ocean CO2 obsorption, some fail to account for El Niño, etc. they actually explained in the paper WHY some papers made better predictions than others in the paper, so I’m not sure why you’re lying now.

>Just sampling 15 models and saying "look guys some of these models have correctly predicted climate in the past few years!" to me is just more bullshit.

Neither I nor anyone else cares what you consider to be bullshit.
You said all climate models were bullshit, got proven wrong, and then backpedalled. GG

[Anonymous No.10670080]

>>10670024
Well, I guess that if you have lower standards than I then yeah, I got proven wrong. But that says as much about me as it says about you. So "GG" I guess.

[Anonymous No.10670330]

>dude all climate models are BS because I say they are
>what all these accurate predictions don't mean anything! They way they got them was wrong! Because I say it is!
>What make a better model? uuuhhhh I totally would but I'm too busy posting on 4chan you see

[Anonymous No.10670334]

>>10669893

[Anonymous No.10670356]

>>10670330
>thinks you can accurately model the "climate" which has infinite dynamic variables

[Anonymous No.10670360]

>>10670356
The Earth isn’t infinitely large so it can’t have infinite dynamic variables. Holy shit you’re mentally ill in some way.

[Anonymous No.10670362]

>>10670356
>bro you can't predict that rock will hit the ground if you drop it there are infinite dynamic variables in the universe!

[Anonymous No.10670364]

>>10670334
I will admit that the cartoon is funny but you should be careful. When the bank's model fucks up nothing bad happens because the government bails them out. What happens when your climate model fucks up? Who is going to bail us out?

And trust me, it will fuck up. Models without fundamentals based only on fitting data always break eventually. Good lord if any country actually passes any significant economic reform based on the current models.

[Anonymous No.10670367]

>>10670364
>dude trust me
why?

[Anonymous No.10670384]

>>10670367
Here's an anecdote I like to tell anyone foolish enough to ever believe in the long term validity of non-fundamental methods:

Richard Dennis was a trend trader who ran a fund from the 70s from the 90s. His "black box" methods made millions in the stock and commodities markets for decades based on very simple statistical observation until.... suddenly in the late 80s his methods all went sour and now he was losing money just like he had been making money in the past. His fund literally lost 50% of all the money they had under management and then had to close the fund due to investors being angry.

Moral of the story: Use your statistical observations and models to make short term predictions and enjoy it while it lasts. If you fool yourself into thinking it will last forever then good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.10670387]

>>10670334
lmao

>>10670364
Are you going to be saying, "well at least we didn't rush into addressing the environment with some uncertainty" if famine is washing across the developed world after the permafrost melts and releases a shitload of methane, fucking up growth conditions? How can we afford to nitpick the models? The alternative is nothing and the threat posed is an existential crisis.

I mean you're all but saying, "We should do nothing, what's the worst that could happen?"

[Anonymous No.10670391]

>>10670364
>What happens when your climate model fucks up?
Then we'll correct it, that's how science works. But why are you so sure that it'll fuck up? It's based on decades of research into the chemistry and physics of the climate and direct empirical observation. You seem to be assuming that it's a curve fitting exercise when it's clearly not. Dyson is simply a contrarian who has no idea what goes into these models and neither do you.

[Anonymous No.10670392]

>>10670360
The "climate" isn't some singular "thing" that can be separated from everything else and modelled as such. It is simply energy like everything else, energy is infinite (cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change). It is impossible, and always will be impossible, for computers to accurately model "energy".

[Anonymous No.10670393]

>>10670387
>Are you going to be saying, "well at least we didn't rush into addressing the environment with some uncertainty" if famine is washing across the developed world after the permafrost melts and releases a shitload of methane, fucking up growth conditions?

Nope, you have a very simplistic view of the matter. We enjoy the privilege of living in a very advanced iteration of capitalism. In capitalism, we do not need to risk the economic integrity of our state to solve problems. We can instead let the business take the risks. If they fail, it barely impacts the country. If they succeed, we all benefit and they get their money.

According to https://www.crunchbase.com/hub/renewable-energy-startups clean energy startups have raised 7 billion dollars in VC capital. I'd say that climate change is a 7 billion dollar problem. Let business do what business does best.

[Anonymous No.10670394]

>>10670364
>When the bank's model fucks up nothing bad happens because the government bails them out.

Bank “models” are entirely different to scientific theories. What an absurd analogy.

> What happens when your climate model fucks up?

Well, we do this wild thing. If a model is discovered to fail.
We do this, get this. It’s fucking crazy.
We try and figure out why it failed, then alter it, or junk it and make a new one.

That’s
That’s science.

>Who is going to bail us out?

Retarded question you got from your retarded analogy you made up because the word “model” can be used in both contexts.

>And trust me, it will fuck up

That’s the whole idea of science, moron. We make theories and we try and refute them constantly until they’re found to be flawed, then we alter them or replace them. This process leads to ever-increasing accuracy to the point where some fields have dominating theories that have little apparent hope of ever being found to falter.

>Models without fundamentals based only on fitting data always break eventually.

That doesn’t describe modern climate modeling so it’s a really weird thing to bring up. Maybe you have Alzheimer’s.

>Good lord if any country actually passes any significant economic reform based on the current models.

They’re making correct predictions on the scale of decades, so.....why not?
You continue to take issue with “climate models” but never any specific ones and fail to actually explain what’s wrong with their modeling. Did they overestimate the albedo values of Siberia or something?

[Anonymous No.10670395]

>>10669863
>Haha they do it for grant money!
You have never met a scientist before have you? If they wanted money, they wouldn't become a scientist.

[Anonymous No.10670396]

>>10670384
Climate models are the opposite of black boxes, learn what you're criticizing before opening your mouth.

[Anonymous No.10670399]

>>10670391
>Then we'll correct it

Genius! Someone phone in Long Term Capital Management and tell them to correct their model just before they go belly up! Someone phone in Bear Stearns and tell them to adjust their model before they go belly up!

[Anonymous No.10670401]

>>10670392
The Earth's energy balance over the long term is dominated by only a few factors though. Many variables does not mean necessarily chaotic at every scale.

[Anonymous No.10670405]

>>10670399
Ah well I guess we should just give up on all science since stockbroking is not one.

[Anonymous No.10670407]

>>10670393
>7 BN
Wow the US alone spends double that in farm subsidies every year.

[Anonymous No.10670410]

>>10670405
They are the same statistical methods. In fact, quants use methods much more sophisticated than the statistical ignorants who call themselves climate scientists. But well, no worries. You have solved every problem forever. Just tell people before the bad thing happens to adjust their model! I could have never thought of something so genius myself, you must be a prodigy.

>>10670407
Yes! Business also gets it done for cheap too!

[Anonymous No.10670411]

>>10670393
>The market will save us!
>>>/biz/

[Anonymous No.10670413]

>>10670392
>The "climate" isn't some singular "thing" that can be separated from everything else and modelled as such.

....Yes, yes it is. It’s just the prevailing weather. Lots of different things affect the prevailing weather, and we can model these effects.

>It is simply energy like everything else

Uh-huh.

>energy is infinite (cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change)

That’s not what “infinite” means in the context of your previous post. Why did you just lie, again?

>It is impossible, and always will be impossible, for computers to accurately model "energy".

Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.10670415]

>>10670411
>Posted from innovation brought by the market

[Anonymous No.10670422]

>>10670399
>Continues to make false comparisons between how people make money and the behavior of thermodynamic systems

[Anonymous No.10670423]

>>10670415
Based entirely on government research and technology

[Anonymous No.10670426]

>>10670415
Actually, computer technology and internet was state-driven.

[Anonymous No.10670428]

>>10670422
They are both stochastic processes. Come up with a better analogy yourself.

[Anonymous No.10670430]

>>10670410
Not when It's more profitable to just burn oil and likely will be for the next 50 years unless a literal miracle happens.

[Anonymous No.10670431]

>>10670410
>They are the same statistical methods.
This tells me you have not spent an iota of effort to learn what goes into a climate model. Your entire argument is based on an ignorant assumption.

>In fact, quants use methods much more sophisticated than the statistical ignorants who call themselves climate scientists.
Of course they do, because markets are incredibly chaotic while the climate is not over the scale we're interested in.

>You have solved every problem forever.
Nope, just the ones you're making up.

[Anonymous No.10670433]

>>10670430
>

[Anonymous No.10670434]

>>10670428
A better analogy to economics would be gambling

[Anonymous No.10670437]

>>10670430
What happens when a cheaper product enters the marketplace and competes against the other product?

>>10670431
If you think we are even close to a point where we can model the climate deterministically then you are actually shoe on head retarded.

[Anonymous No.10670443]

>>10670428
>They are both stochastic processes.

......And?

>Come up with a better analogy yourself.

I don’t use analogies because they’re only ever useful for attempting to explain concepts to people ignorant about a subject., because they inevitably fail in some way or they’d not be analogies.

[Anonymous No.10670444]

>>10670437
You're putting lots of faith in something that has absolutely no guarantee of happening

[Anonymous No.10670447]

>>10670444
Admit you are doing the same with the meme models of today and we'll call it a draw.

[Anonymous No.10670448]

>>10670437
How good do you think our abilities to predict the future climate have to be for us to take any action on climate change?

I’m really curious.

[Anonymous No.10670450]

>>10670447
The “meme models of today” have been predicting temperatures reliably on the scale of decades, so why’d you just lie?

[Anonymous No.10670452]

>>10670437
That doesn't respond to anything I said. Let's try this again:

1. They don't use the same statistical methods. Climate models are based on GCMs coupled with various mechanistic models of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity.

2. What they study are not comparable, markets are much more chaotic than the climate over the long term.

This renders your analogies completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.10670453]

>>10670448
Ok an actual fair question. Here's what I want: I want an actual theory. A model based on fundamentals. If you gave me that then I would at least be driven to stop shitting on climate scientists.

>>10670450
>Bear Stearns has been profitable since 1923 there is no way they could fail LOL

[Anonymous No.10670454]

>>10670447
we've already established you have absolutely no understanding of how models are made or work. and they have already shown extremely significant predictive power. So no you spewing bullshit is not the same you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10670455]

>>10670453
Why can't this retard fuck off with his financial false equivalences

[Anonymous No.10670456]

>>10670453
>Here's what I want: I want an actual theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

[Anonymous No.10670461]

>>10670453
>Ok an actual fair question. Here's what I want: I want an actual theory. A model based on fundamentals. If you gave me that then I would at least be driven to stop shitting on climate scientists.

Define “fundamentals”.
What the fuck does that mean?
>Bear Stearns has been profitable since 1923 there is no way they could fail LOL

>Still making false analogies
If they do start failing, they can adjust their business model so they stop.

[Anonymous No.10670468]

>>10670401
>The Earth's energy balance
What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.10670470]

>>10670468
please tell me you aren't the guy we've been arguing with this whole fucking thread

[Anonymous No.10670474]

>>10670468

[Anonymous No.10670480]

>>10670413
>....Yes, yes it is. It’s just the prevailing weather. Lots of different things affect the prevailing weather, and we can model these effects.
Define what the "climate" is by separating it from everything else.
>That’s not what “infinite” means in the context of your previous post. Why did you just lie, again?
There are infinite dynamic variables involved in the earth's climate. Every variable can be separated into more variables ad infinitum.
>Citation needed.
Computers are energy, but cannot simulate all energy they are not.

[Anonymous No.10670490]

>>10670480
>dude you can't predict that earth's gravity accelerates objects at the same rate the are infinite variables involved

[Anonymous No.10670493]

>>10670480
>Define what the "climate" is by separating it from everything else.
Why?

>There are infinite dynamic variables involved in the earth's climate. Every variable can be separated into more variables ad infinitum.
Not every variable matters and the effects of many variables can be represented by one variable.

>Computers are energy, but cannot simulate all energy they are not.
What the fuck? Is this some kind of psychedelic poetry? It's called thermodynamics retard, and it's done every day.

[Anonymous No.10670496]

>>10670493
this is what happens when econ majors think their opinions on climate science are valid

[Anonymous No.10670511]

>>10670470
You're the one that's used the term "Earth's energy balance", what does that mean? I get the feeling you don't know because you haven't answered the question already.
>>10670474
You can't answer it either? Can't say I'm surprised.

[Anonymous No.10670513]

>>10670490
>>dude you can't predict that earth's gravity accelerates objects at the same rate the are infinite variables involved
There is no singular "thing" called "gravity". Everything is involved in the perceived acceleration of objects "downwards".

[Anonymous No.10670514]

>>10670511
>I don't know elementary school concepts, therefore I win
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[Anonymous No.10670515]

>>10670513
see making predictions is useless it's too complicated.

[Anonymous No.10670518]

>>10670511
yikes you basically argued about market forces for an hour and then asked what supply and demand was

[Anonymous No.10670521]

>>10670493
>Why?
So that the claim of predicted/modelling "climate" can be valid. The fact you haven't done this tells me you can't.
>Not every variable matters and the effects of many variables can be represented by one variable.
Every variable matters. However there are infinite variables so it's impossible anyway.
>What the fuck? Is this some kind of psychedelic poetry? It's called thermodynamics retard, and it's done every day.
Computers can only play pretend. They're only as good as the programmer can make them pretend, which is very badly.

[Anonymous No.10670524]

>>10670521
by this logic you have to simulate the entire universe to predict if me beating you with a baseball bat would be painful want to give it a try? I've made my prediction lets see if it's accurate. We'll definitively need more than one data point though

[Anonymous No.10670526]

>>10670514
This is talking about "heat energy", as if the earth even has a "heat energy balance" which is absurd. You cannot separate "energy" like this, it is not separate.

[Anonymous No.10670529]

>>10670515
Confusing "predictions" as being reality is what is retarded.

[Anonymous No.10670531]

>>10670526
I'm running out of brainlet wojacks boys I need some help here

[Anonymous No.10670533]

>>10670521
>So that the claim of predicted/modelling "climate" can be valid.
What does one have to do with the other?

>Every variable matters.
Nope.

>Computers can only play pretend. They're only as good as the programmer can make them pretend, which is very badly.
So all statistical modeling is very bad? This is empirically false and you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.10670541]

>>10670496
FACTS

Brainlet should go back to his natural habitat of /biz/ and bet all of this week's cuckbux on a shitcoin

[Anonymous No.10670546]

>>10670526
>This is talking about "heat energy", as if the earth even has a "heat energy balance" which is absurd.
It's not absurd and can be directly observed. There is a quantifiable amount of energy going into the Earth's atmosphere and a quantifiable amount going out. Since the only significant method of this transfer is radiation, this energy is heat by definition.

[Anonymous No.10670555]

>>10670461
>>10670455
Finance has the best examples of when black swans come and they absolutely rape your ass. If you wish to ignore these important lessons from history then you do you, guys.

>If they do start failing, they can adjust their business model so they stop.

Bear Stearns went belly up in 2008.

[Anonymous No.10670558]

>>10670524
No you don't, you just need programmers who can write something that will be reasonably accurate. If you didn't know, programmers are human, therefore will know that being hit by a bat would be painful. What they don't know, is what the "climate" actually is because they're not the "climate".

[Anonymous No.10670559]

>>10670555
please go back I can only laugh at one person so much

[Anonymous No.10670564]

>>10670558
>reasonably accurate
thanks for debunking your own argument.

[Anonymous No.10670565]

>>10670531
Tell me what "heat energy" is separated from everything else.

[Anonymous No.10670567]

>>10670559
When I look at something like the green new deal and see it quoting results from the models of climate alarmists as justification, my eyes blurry and all I see is Long Term Capital Management, except that this time the money is coming from the taxpayers and what will collapse is the entire economy, with no possible bailout.

[Anonymous No.10670569]

>>10670567
I can't wait for all the boomers to die off. Worst generation

[Anonymous No.10670572]

>>10670555
Please show me where you see black swans on the graph.

[Anonymous No.10670573]

>>10670569
>Please show me where you see mortgage-backed securities failing on the graph

[Anonymous No.10670575]

>>10670565
Heat energy here just means the energy being radiated towards and away from Earth.

[Anonymous No.10670576]

>>10670573
They can't even backlink properly ffs

[Anonymous No.10670580]

>>10670533
>What does one have to do with the other?
Define what the "climate" is separated from everything else. Doing this means that it can be studied, analysed, modelled and predicted cleanly. I will ask you one more time to provide this definition.
>Nope.
Prove it by defining what the "climate" is, separate to everything else.
>So all statistical modeling is very bad? This is empirically false and you're a moron.
Depends what it is. In terms of the "climate", it is terrible.

[Anonymous No.10670581]

>>10670573
What is the climate equivalent of a black swan?

[Anonymous No.10670583]

>>10670572
oddly enough there actually is one around t=0 though it was predicted back in 1896 so it's only a black swan from the earth's perspective

[Anonymous No.10670587]

>>10670583
Quality post

[Anonymous No.10670588]

>>10670546
>It's not absurd and can be directly observed. There is a quantifiable amount of energy going into the Earth's atmosphere and a quantifiable amount going out. Since the only significant method of this transfer is radiation, this energy is heat by definition.
At what point does the earth become separate to everything else?

[Anonymous No.10670591]

>>10670580
>Define what the "climate" is separated from everything else.
Why?

>Doing this means that it can be studied, analysed, modelled and predicted cleanly.
It can be studied, analysed, modelled and predicted cleanly right now. So your question is irrelevant.

>Prove it by defining what the "climate" is, separate to everything else.
One has nothing to do with the other.

>Depends what it is. In terms of the "climate", it is terrible.
It's not, see >>10670391

You lost, get over it.

[Anonymous No.10670595]

>>10670588
>At what point does the earth become separate to everything else?
What does this have to do with my post?

[Anonymous No.10670598]

>>10670564
Climate models are not reasonably accurate, and even if they were, it proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.10670601]

>>10670598
we've already established they are though, why can't you stop making shit up?

[Anonymous No.10670608]

>>10670598
Which models have you looked at that are not accurate?

[Anonymous No.10670613]

>>10670591
>Why?
So you cannot do it. And that in a nutshell summarises what is wrong with "climate" "science".
>It can be studied, analysed, modelled and predicted cleanly right now. So your question is irrelevant.
So tell me what "it" actually is.
>One has nothing to do with the other.
Define what the "climate" actually is.
>It's not, see >>10670391
Wow, really impressive how they alter the models after getting it wrong. They even have to make up 50% of the earth's temperature data because it isn't recorded. "Science" doesn't get much better than that.

[Anonymous No.10670623]

>>10670595
>What does this have to do with my post?
If there's a quantifiable amount of energy going in and out of the earth's atmosphere, then the earth's atmosphere must be a separate thing to everything else that either has energy entering or exiting it. So where is this separation?

[Anonymous No.10670625]

>>10670601
Accurate once they've been altered? Give me a break.

[Anonymous No.10670628]

>>10670623
>Where is the air?
Are you high?

[Anonymous No.10670630]

>>10670625
ok here's your chance to show your evidence showing how inaccurate climate models are you do have evidence right? I'm sure you would never just believe something like that based purely on hearsay right?

[Anonymous No.10670631]

>>10670608
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1

[Anonymous No.10670636]

>>10670628
What separates the air from everything else?

[Anonymous No.10670639]

>>10670636
>What makes it air?
It's not air if it's not gaseous. Now I know you're high

[Anonymous No.10670642]

>>10670631
did you even skim this before you linked it?

[Anonymous No.10670643]

>>10670613
>So you cannot do it. And that in a nutshell summarises what is wrong with "climate" "science".
So you cannot explain why you need this. And that in a nutshell summarizes what is wrong with your "argument."

>So tell me what "it" actually is.
The average weather over time and space.

>Wow, really impressive how they alter the models after getting it wrong.
Oh so they shouldn't do that and should just stop making models better, got it.

>They even have to make up 50% of the earth's temperature data because it isn't recorded.
What do you mean my "make up?"

[Anonymous No.10670648]

>>10670631
Which model in the paper is inaccurate?

[Anonymous No.10670651]

>>10670639
First of all, doesn't the "earth's atmosphere" go beyond the moon? Second of all, perfect vacuums don't exist, so isn't air everywhere?

[Anonymous No.10670656]

>>10670642
>did you even skim this before you linked it?
How much are you being paid to derail discussion? I've seen these same tactics over and over again. You will take issue with a post but never actually provide any detail as to why you take issue with it in the hopes it has a similar effect.

[Anonymous No.10670659]

>>10670656
The entire paper is on tuning climate models why would you think it as anything to do with showing examples of models being inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.10670668]

>>10670643
>So you cannot explain why you need this. And that in a nutshell summarizes what is wrong with your "argument."
Oh dear. As if it even matters "why I need it". Either you are unable to provide a definition and won't admit it, or you're mentally ill. To avoid a false dichotomy other reasons are possible but highly unlikely.
>The average weather over time and space.
Can you explain what separates weather from everything else?
>Oh so they shouldn't do that and should just stop making models better, got it.
They should stop using them because they're pseudo-science.
>What do you mean my "make up?"
Guesstimate what the temps were for unrecorded areas.

[Anonymous No.10670671]

>>10670648
Any that use "parameterization". There are 30+ of them used by the United Nations.

[Anonymous No.10670677]

>>10670671
I didn't see anything that even implies that in the provided paper, are you sure you linked the right one?

[Anonymous No.10670683]

>>10670677
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming
>But the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply averages up the 29 major climate models to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century, a practice rarely done in operational weather forecasting. As dryly noted by Eyring and others “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.”

>Indeed. The authors of the new paper show that the aggregate models are making huge errors in three of the places on earth that are critical to our understanding of climate.

>The first big error is over the entire Southern Ocean, the huge circumpolar body of water separating South America, Africa and Australia from Antarctica. The 29 models calculate, on average, it to be much less cold than it actually is, with large swaths 2.7 degree Fahrenheit or more warmer than reality. Given that the southern margin of the Southern Ocean is mostly sea-ice, this means that vast areas of real-world ice are simulated as being liquid water.

>Further, almost all of the moisture that precipitates over Antarctica comes from the Southern Ocean, and an enormous amount of additional water vapor in forecasts comes from the practice of using models that raise the ocean temperature a few degrees beyond what it actually is. The result is a forecast of gobs of nonexistent snow originating from an ocean with swaths of nonexistent open water.

>Another important error is along the west coast of South America...

[Anonymous No.10670688]

>>10670683
Why would you link to an article by a libertarian think tank instead of the actual paper?
Which Sums itself up pretty well with this
>There is now emerging evidence that weighting based on model performance may improve projections for specific applications
Surely you aren't going to make the elementary school level mistake of confusing weather and climate? Oh wait that's exactly what you're doing

[Anonymous No.10670694]

>>10670683
so you did link the wrong thing lmao

[Anonymous No.10670701]

>>10670688
>may improve projections for specific applications
Oh well that settles it then, there is nothing wrong with climate models. The rest of the paper might as well have not been written...

The fact you cannot even admit that there are issues with climate models is very interesting.

[Anonymous No.10670709]

>>10670701
Here comes the straw man because you're out of ideas
How do we go from me saying climate models are accurate to climate models are literally perfect and are impossible to improve through any means.
Fuck off with your second grade level attempts at argument.

[Anonymous No.10670710]

>>10670694
I backed my claim up with another study. The UN used to have 30+ models but now it's 29. They all use "parameterization" therefore suffer the issues outlined in both studies.

[Anonymous No.10670712]

>>10670651
No and no. Learn what an atmosphere is

[Anonymous No.10670714]

>>10669828

[Anonymous No.10670719]

>>10670710
Neither study says anything about climate models utilizing parameterization to be inaccurate, can be improved doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this.

[Anonymous No.10670723]

>>10670709
>How do we go from me saying climate models are accurate
What does "climate models are accurate" even mean? This is deliberately vague. Expand.
>to climate models are literally perfect and are impossible to improve through any means.
According to you they are not inaccurate. If there is something wrong with climate models, what is it?

[Anonymous No.10670724]

>>10670712
Where does earth's atmosphere begin and end? What separates the earth's atmosphere from the non-vacuum of space?

[Anonymous No.10670726]

>>10670719
Parameterization by its very nature in climate models is inaccurate because it's an attempt to model things that it simply cannot model due to the nature of the climate being too complex and dynamic.

[Anonymous No.10670729]

>>10670723
I actually like the opening statement from the first paper you linked
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear1. Observed increases of greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to warming of the atmosphere and ocean, sea-ice decline and sea-level rise. The size and rapidity of these changes is concerning. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many aspects of societies and ecosystems. These impacts will become more visible and more serious in the twenty-first century. It should, therefore, be an international priority to improve our understanding of the climate system, and to reduce current uncertainties in projections of future change. This will rely on information from theory, observations, and Earth system model (ESM) simulations that are coordinated as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP; refs. 2–5). CMIP is now in its sixth phase (CMIP6)5 and is confronted with a number of new challenges. Compared to CMIP5, an increased number of institutions participate in CMIP6, many with multiple model versions. The latest generation of climate models feature increases in spatial resolution, improvements in physical parameterizations (in the representation of clouds, for example) and inclusion of additional Earth system processes (such as nutrient limitations on the terrestrial carbon cycle) and components (such as ice sheets). These additional processes are needed to represent key feedbacks that affect climate change, but are also likely to increase the spread of climate projections across the multimodel ensemble. This escalates the need for innovative and comprehensive model evaluation approaches.
Further reading for you

[Anonymous No.10670731]

>>10670729
>https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
>Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

[Anonymous No.10670742]

>>10670729
>the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear
Notice how it doesn't actually say that humans are the cause of this supposed warming?
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Since when did governments of the world give a shit about the "environment"? If you do not see the political motive for man-made climate change being believed then you are extremely naive. The main benefit is not funding the Middle East for oil any more. It also makes it harder for developing countries to develop. Western countries will become the new "green energy" providers, allowing for obscene amounts of money to be made.

[Anonymous No.10670745]

>>10670731
>The main point is we now know enough to act.
And what does that action entail exactly? Money. Lots and lots of money.

When do people want money? Now. As quickly as possible. It is imperative we "act" now, AKA fund "green energy". If we don't, your grandchildren will die from tornadoes made of global warming.

LISTEN TO GRETA THUNBERG. NO SHE IS NOT SOME CHEAP POLITICAL PROP. SHE'S A CHILD WHO WILL DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE ACID SNOW FIRE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW.

[Anonymous No.10670752]

>>10670742
>Notice how it doesn't actually say that humans are the cause of this supposed warming?
Can you even fucking read?
>Since when did governments of the world give a shit about the "environment"?
because they don't want to experience famine massive refugee crises and tremendous loss in property? My favorite example of international governments actually doing something is the Montreal Protocol though.
The rest of your post is just conspiracy nonsense with oddly anti capitalist sentiments and nothing to back it up so I'll ignore it.

[Anonymous No.10670753]

>>10670745
Claiming the whole thing is a capitalist conspiracy so China can sell solar panels isn't an argument

[Anonymous No.10670756]

>>10670724
From the boundary defined by the sharp increase in the particle density surrounding the planet all the way down not including liquids or solids. I'm honestly not surprised I had to explain that to you since you thought the moon was in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.10670758]

>>10670745
>Just found out I have cancer
>That shit is too expensive to treat so I'll wait until the cost of cancer treatment drops

[Anonymous No.10670759]

>>10670756
we've been doing lots of explaining that really should have been his middle school science teachers job.

[Anonymous No.10670763]

>>10670759
Yep, the US education system is definitely broken. I used to get in trouble for correcting my teachers instead of letting them teach 30 other kids a lie

[Anonymous No.10670776]

>>10670752
>Can you even fucking read?
Yes, can you? They word these papers in a manipulative way. Why didn't they say that human activity is causing the warming? Instead they just say that human activity on the climate is clear, which could mean anything.
>because they don't want to experience famine massive refugee crises and tremendous loss in property?
You think the governments are afraid of that? Those are the same tired hysterical claims used to scare the public, not the government. Funny how environmentalists love refugees but use them as a negative consequence of AGW to get the "racists" on board.
>the Montreal Protocol
This was a trial run before AGW. They have to start small first, and they have to be successful. Then they can move on to the real money maker.

[Anonymous No.10670778]

>>10670753
Why is Greta the face of your doomsday cult? Don't you find that fishy?

[Anonymous No.10670780]

>>10670776
>>10670778
Well guys good job, we finally made it into the autistic screeching phase of this climate thread where instead of trying to act like logical human being they scream about big government conspiracies to sell solar panels.
Our work here is done and now we get to point and laugh

[Anonymous No.10670781]

>>10670756
>From the boundary defined by the sharp increase in the particle density surrounding the planet all the way down not including liquids or solids.
Meaningless.
>I'm honestly not surprised I had to explain that to you since you thought the moon was in the atmosphere
What's this then?
https://www.space.com/earth-atmosphere-extends-beyond-moon.html

[Anonymous No.10670782]

>>10670776
You would have to have brain damage to think that statement is ambiguous in any way.

[Anonymous No.10670784]

Leonardo da Vinci visited the source in Lombardy to sample the town’s "miraculous" water, 'yumi'

[Anonymous No.10670790]

>>10670782
She even includes a fucking citation

[Anonymous No.10670793]

>>10670780
Yeah because the government doesn't conspire to do anything other than save the planet from climate change.

[Anonymous No.10670796]

>>10670782
They've fooled you then.

[Anonymous No.10670798]

>>10670796
Keep the screeching going I love every second.

[Anonymous No.10670803]

>>10670798
Keep screeching about climate change I love every second of your doomsday cult.

[Anonymous No.10670805]

>>10670781
>Meaningless
To a brain let like you maybe

>What's this then?
A pop-sci mischaracterization of the solar wind blowing bits of the atmosphere into space. Notice how it doesn't conflict with my definition

[Anonymous No.10670813]

>>10670803
Yes keep posting, every unsubstantiated meaningless claim gives me a dopamine hit from having so easily won an argument on 4chan

[Anonymous No.10670815]

>>10670805
>To a brain let like you maybe
*brainlet
>solar wind blowing bits of the atmosphere into space.
What a load of sci-fi horseshit.
>Notice how it doesn't conflict with my definition
Just makes your definition even more meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10670818]

>>10670815
ok this actually made me laugh here's your (you)

[Anonymous No.10670820]

>>10670815
Wew, lad. Maybe you should finish highschool before posting

[Anonymous No.10670821]

>>10670813
Why don't you join Greta and protest with her? Perhaps give a talk to the UN? DO YOUR PART AND SAVE THE PLANET. NOW.

[Anonymous No.10670823]

>>10670818
Climate change is no laughing matter. You're dead in 12 years if you don't do anything. DO SOMETHING.

[Anonymous No.10670824]

>>10670821
Is she actually 16? She's adorable

[Anonymous No.10670827]

>>10670820
Oh cool a drawing. I guess that makes it real because drawings are real.

[Anonymous No.10670830]

I'm so happy they stopped pretending to understand any science

[Anonymous No.10670831]

>>10670824
She's going to save our lives.

[Anonymous No.10670836]

>>10670830
Climate change is pseudo-science.

[Anonymous No.10670843]

>>10670836
ok prove it

[Anonymous No.10670847]

>>10670843
Oil companies are funding pro man made climate change research.

[Anonymous No.10670853]

>>10670836
>>10670843
I'm feeling nice so here's a starting point
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas this means that it absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the earth and re emits it causing it to stay in the atmosphere longer causing an insulating effect.
2.Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will therefore result in a warmer planet
3.Burning fossil fuels emits CO2
4. CO2 has risen from ranging from ~200-280PPM for over the past 3Million years to jumping to 415PPM and rising in the past 80 years
5. The ratio of carbon isotopes in the increased atmospheric CO2 exactly matches the ratio found in fossil fuels and does not match any other sources.
Refute any of these points and you might be on to something let me know how it goes.

[Anonymous No.10670854]

>>10670827
I really hope you're trolling. Why don't you Google it?

[Anonymous No.10670855]

>>10670847
Oil companies spend considerably more funding "climate skeptics" look into the heartland foundation

[Anonymous No.10670858]

>>10670847
IT'S THE GREEN ENERGY COMPANIES TRYING TO SELL SOLAR PANELS WHO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10670865]

>>10670858
That's actually energy companies lobbying to make renewables less competitive. For example, all of the net metering laws that allow energy companies to limit the size of solar installations and to keep the profits from the energy generated from solar rather than paying out to the owner

[Anonymous No.10670871]

>>10670865
Probably somewhat right. There's also lots of lobbying to ensure the EPA doesn't actually do it's job and coal and oil subsidies stay strong. As well as making sure no kind of CO2 regulations are passed.

[Anonymous No.10670874]

>>10670853
>1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas this means that it absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the earth and re emits it causing it to stay in the atmosphere longer causing an insulating effect.
CO2 has very little affect on temperature, water vapor is what affects temperature.
>2.Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will therefore result in a warmer planet
Not much with CO2 alone. Water vapor will actually have a noticeable effect.
>3.Burning fossil fuels emits CO2
What a coincidence!
>4. CO2 has risen from ranging from ~200-280PPM for over the past 3Million years to jumping to 415PPM and rising in the past 80 years
CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around.
>5. The ratio of carbon isotopes in the increased atmospheric CO2 exactly matches the ratio found in fossil fuels and does not match any other sources.
How is "increased CO2" separated from other CO2? Utterly bizarre. Post the study.

[Anonymous No.10670876]

>>10670668
>Oh dear. As if it even matters "why I need it".
Of course it does. Give me $100 or you lose the argument.

>Can you explain what separates weather from everything else?
Why?

>They should stop using them because they're pseudo-science.
How are they pseudoscience?

>Guesstimate what the temps were for unrecorded areas.
What is the process for "guesstimating" and how is it equivalent to "making up" temperatures? What source is telling you 50% of the temp record is guesstimated?

[Anonymous No.10670879]

>>10670671
Where does it say they're inaccurate?

[Anonymous No.10670880]

>>10670855
Is that why they claim man made climate change is real? Makes total sense.

[Anonymous No.10670882]

>>10670858
Who do you think owns the green energy companies? The oil industry have a big stake in it.

[Anonymous No.10670888]

>>10670874
>CO2 has very little affect on temperature
>Not much with CO2 alone.
>CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around.
Wrong, try again.

>How is "increased CO2" separated from other CO2?
No one said it was.

[Anonymous No.10670893]

>>10670882
So they have a big stake in them, but they aren't the primary owners, and they are still primarily oil companies, and they are working to devalue the majority of their assets to benefit the minority of their assets? You are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10670905]

>>10670874
>CO2 has very little affect on temperature, water vapor is what affects temperature.
Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that amplifies changes in temperature Water vapor is only increased by increased temperature which CO2 does cause. and can be proved by reduced radiation from it's absorption spectrum as measured by satellites
>Not much with CO2 alone. Water vapor will actually have a noticeable effect.
Water vapor amplifies warming from CO2 but does not cause it alone
>CO2 lags behind temperature, not the other way around.
This has been true in the past as higher temperatures (usually caused by wobbles in the earths orbit) warm the planet and release CO2 from the ocean and permafrost which then amplifies the initial warming. None of this applies if you're directly adding Gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. from burning fossil fuels.
>How is "increased CO2" separated from other CO2? Utterly bizarre. Post the study.
To clarify I meant change ratio of carbon isotopes from when atmospheric CO2 was lower to today. here's the study
https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Not doing so good looks like the theory is solid. Might have to put the Nobel prize on hold.

[Anonymous No.10670906]

>>10670880
Some of them are at the point where not even they can deny the evidence and still be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.10670913]

>>10670876
>Of course it does. Give me $100 or you lose the argument.
Still unable to define what the "climate" actually is as a singular entity. Checkmate.
>Why?
Checkmate again.
>How are they pseudoscience?
Because computer models are not real life.
>What is the process for "guesstimating" and how is it equivalent to "making up" temperatures? What source is telling you 50% of the temp record is guesstimated?
They analyse all of the temperature data, and then fill in the blanks based upon the recorded temperature data. I guess they can do what they want. Source is pic related.

[Anonymous No.10670919]

>>10670913
>posting a graph from that retard Tony Heller as fact
nice one

[Anonymous No.10670920]

>>10670879
Do you know what "parameterization" is?

[Anonymous No.10670923]

>>10670888
>Wrong, try again.
Ice core samples show that CO2 lags behind temperature.
>No one said it was.
Post the study.

[Anonymous No.10670926]

>>10670920
>Parameterization in a weather or climate model in the context of numerical weather prediction is a method of replacing processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process. This can be contrasted with other processes—e.g., large-scale flow of the atmosphere—that are explicitly resolved within the models. Associated with these parameterizations are various parameters used in the simplified processes.

You've failed to show that this makes models unreliable all you've provided is your opinion which is worthless.

[Anonymous No.10670929]

>>10670893
They'll make even more money in the long run.

[Anonymous No.10670932]

>>10670923
No one was burning fossil fuels 500,000 years ago so saying CO2 lags temperature in ice core samples is meaningless all it shows is your ignorance of the mechanisms of change in climate

[Anonymous No.10670940]

>>10670905
>Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that amplifies changes in temperature Water vapor is only increased by increased temperature which CO2 does cause. and can be proved by reduced radiation from it's absorption spectrum as measured by satellites
The sun increases temperature, which increases water vapor and CO2. It is not the CO2 causing the warming.
>Water vapor amplifies warming from CO2 but does not cause it alone
The sun causes the warming.
>This has been true in the past as higher temperatures (usually caused by wobbles in the earths orbit) warm the planet and release CO2 from the ocean and permafrost which then amplifies the initial warming. None of this applies if you're directly adding Gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. from burning fossil fuels.
Far more CO2 is released from the oceans, we are a tiny part of it, and reducing our emissions won't do anything.
>https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>In addition, the isotopic connection of different chemical species or different types of archives needs further improvement, and the(isotopic) fractionation between compartments is not established well enough to allow conclusions to be drawn unequivocally. Models require experimental input of roughly equivalent quality and a high spatial density which is difficult to get for the present and impossible to provide for the past. For reducing the uncertainty of our understanding of the Earth’s climate system, the puzzle needs more pieces.
Not very solid is it?

[Anonymous No.10670944]

>>10670906
So the oil industry lost. Who did they lose to?

[Anonymous No.10670946]

>>10670919
Disprove it.

[Anonymous No.10670951]

>>10670926
>You've failed to show that this makes models unreliable all you've provided is your opinion which is worthless.
Making the model less like the "climate" will make it more unreliable. That's a fact.

[Anonymous No.10670955]

>>10670932
>No one was burning fossil fuels 500,000 years ago
So what? The majority of CO2 comes out of the ocean when heated by the sun.

[Anonymous No.10670961]

>>10670940
>its the sun
Why has the sun been cooling over the past 50 years while temperature has been rising?
>it's the oceans
You don't understand how carbon flux works the ocean generally absorbs as much CO2 as it emits
>Not very solid is it?
your out of context sentence is referring to paleoclimate data which isn't relevant to our discussion. All that matters for the purposes of this discussion is pre industrial and current isotope ratios
>And third, since13C of atmospheric CO2haschanged over time, mainly due to addition of13C-depleted fossil fuel, carbon isotope ratios of respired(older) CO2differ slightly from those of (mod-ern) photosynthesis.

[Anonymous No.10670963]

>>10670955
ooooops

[Anonymous No.10670965]

If you are well versed in debates and understand logical fallacies, the winner of this will be obvious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

[Anonymous No.10670978]

>>10670923
>Ice core samples show that CO2 lags behind temperature.
no they don't, stuff happens both ways
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m44s

[Anonymous No.10670983]

>>10670963
Here's CO2 over the same time period

[Anonymous No.10670984]

>>10670961
>Why has the sun been cooling over the past 50 years while temperature has been rising?
The oceans don't produce CO2 instantly in relation to the sun's temperature, this also lags.
>You don't understand how carbon flux works the ocean generally absorbs as much CO2 as it emits
The ocean emits far more CO2 than we do.

>your out of context sentence is referring to paleoclimate data which isn't relevant to our discussion. All that matters for the purposes of this discussion is pre industrial and current isotope ratios
>And third, since13C of atmospheric CO2haschanged over time, mainly due to addition of13C-depleted fossil fuel, carbon isotope ratios of respired(older) CO2differ slightly from those of (mod-ern) photosynthesis.

Funny how you deliberately left out the sentences after this:

>This isotope disequilibrium effect today renders the assessment of the relative contributions of respiration and photosynthesis to
changes in atmospheric CO2 difficult. On the other hand, with improved precision in local studies, it may help to unravel the respective signatures in the future.

[Anonymous No.10670986]

>>10670983
Now show water vapor.

[Anonymous No.10670987]

>>10670923
>Ice core samples show that CO2 lags behind temperature.
no they don't,
CO2 leads and lags temperature, at different stages in the glacial cycle.
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m44s

[Anonymous No.10670992]

>>10670984
>The oceans don't produce CO2 instantly in relation to the sun's temperature, this also lags.
By how much? there's absolutely no correlation between solar activity and current rise in CO2 concentrations
>The ocean emits far more CO2 than we do.
It also generally absorbs more than it emits.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/

[Anonymous No.10670997]

>>10670987
>CO2 leads and lags temperature
That makes no sense. There's something else involved.

[Anonymous No.10671005]

>>10670984
>Funny how you deliberately left out the sentences after this

Isotopic ratios in atmospheric CO2 have changed plants are absorbing this CO2 and now emitting a similar isotopic ratio when they burn so it makes tracking contributions from new plants slightly harder to track. Absolutely nothing about this contradicts anything I've said

[Anonymous No.10671007]

>>10670992

[Anonymous No.10671009]

>>10670946
burden of proof is on you, good luck finding where tony got his figures from though.

[Anonymous No.10671603]

>>10670913
>Still unable to define what the "climate" actually is as a singular entity. Checkmate.
Still unable to explain how your demand is relevant. Checkmate.

>Checkmate again.
Checkmate again.

>Because computer models are not real life.
How is this pseudoscience? All science creates models and all models are not real life

>They analyse all of the temperature data, and then fill in the blanks based upon the recorded temperature data. I guess they can do what they want. Source is pic related.
What method and data is this picture based on?

[Anonymous No.10671609]

>>10670923
>Ice core samples show that CO2 lags behind temperature.
Ice core samples are the entire history of the climate? CO2 is not leading behind temperature currently so you're clearly wrong.

>Post the study.
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

[Anonymous No.10671615]

>>10670986
What causes water vapor to increase?

[Anonymous No.10671618]

Damn, so this thread is still going on despite everyone being proven to be statistical ignorants. You know, I remember the good old days when the people who believed in climate change were the smart ones and the deniers were the statistical ignorants. Then suddenly it got profitable and everyone with ethics like me became neutral instead of joining the grifters (who by nature of being glorified scam-artists are really stupid and ignorant of science in general), and all the grifters who were on the oil-money side simply changed to the highest bidder.

When the dust settles and some California start-up solves climate change and every retards climate alarmist gets proven wrong I'm going to write a book about the history of global warming and climate science. This is really the story that proves what anyone in science knows but is too afraid to admit: 99.9% of scientists are incompetent.

[Anonymous No.10671624]

>>10671618
Funny how you claim everyone is ignorant of statistics when you haven't given even a single example of any climate model being inaccurate or overfit. You just spent the whole thread conflating the climate with markets when anyone with a background in statistics can see they arw completely different in their behavior and how they are studied. Nice LARP.

[Anonymous No.10671627]

>>10671624
>when you haven't given even a single example of any climate model being inaccurate or overfit

I didn't need to, one of you guys did it for me. Above someone posted an article where some researchers tested 15 climate models against recent data and found some that (still) worked, and some that had SEVERELY overestimated the rising temperatures compared to current levels (i.e. grifters). Just read that, I even said that the research was well done. Though I must add that that is the kind of research I'd expect from a mediocre undergrad thesis, God knows why some serious scientists even bothered. That is the kind of statistical analysis you do on R on the weekends out of curiosity and then maybe mention to your colleagues in casual conversation once or twice. But they got published (see my point about easy publications?).

>You just spent the whole thread conflating the climate with markets

As I said, financial markets have the best-recorded history of events when statistical models worked for a long time and then just stopped working and then everyone got fucked in the ass. I never said climate = finance. I am saying that finance is the only field with good data regarding these types of events. As I said, if you want to ignore the lessons of history then you do you.

[Anonymous No.10671653]

>>10671627
>I didn't need to, one of you guys did it for me. Above someone posted an article where some researchers tested 15 climate models against recent data and found some that (still) worked, and some that had SEVERELY overestimated the rising temperatures compared to current levels (i.e. grifters).
Which paper are you referring to? I don't see any that show models severely overestimating anything.

>As I said, financial markets have the best-recorded history of events when statistical models worked for a long time and then just stopped working and then everyone got fucked in the ass.
Supposedly you understand statistics so supposedly you understand this is caused by the chaotic nature of markets. The parts of the climate that are necessary to predict the long term trend are not chaotic.

[Anonymous No.10671658]

>>10671618
Wow we got a genius up in this thread. Hey everyone listen to this guy. It is an honor to be your presence, I wish my IQ was at least half of yours.

[Anonymous No.10671667]

>>10671653
I'm talking about
>>10669938

From pic related, Red: observations. Blue: the good models. Grey: the bad models

>Supposedly you understand statistics so supposedly you understand this is caused by the chaotic nature of markets. The parts of the climate that are necessary to predict the long term trend are not chaotic.

Well, define chaotic. If predicting climate did not depend on "chaotic" "parts" then no one should get a bad model.

[Anonymous No.10671689]

>>10671667
>From pic related, Red: observations. Blue: the good models. Grey: the bad models
That's completely wrong though. That's a comparisons of model *runs* of the same model. The El Nino/La Nina cycle is a result of chaotic circulation that dominates the temperature over the short term. Over longer terms the greenhouse effect dominates and the El Nino/La Nina cycle has no trend.

>Well, define chaotic.
LOL thank you for again proving you lied about knowing statistical analysis.

>If predicting climate did not depend on "chaotic" "parts" then no one should get a bad model.
The fact that you don't understand the difference between a model and a model run is hilarious. Again, nice LARP.

[Anonymous No.10671716]

>>10670362
Yes exactly, the rotation of Jupiter is negligible for the process of a falling rock. But factors in climate models are highly interconnected and very small changes in initial conditions can propagate to huge changes later. A butterfly could flap it's wings in London in 1950 causing a storm in Indonesia now. I agree with Dyson that we don't know what factors are important to particular processes.

[Anonymous No.10671764]

>>10671689
>LOL thank you for again proving you lied about knowing statistical analysis.

The ways you are using chaotic are not consistent with each other, let alone with any academic definition of chaotic. But well, you are clearly taking a confrontational tone to this entire conversation so I wonder if you even care about the truth. It's not really worth my time to talk to you because your posts contain more accusations about me than facts regarding the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.10671886]

>>10671716
Jesus the larping never stops just please fuck off

[Anonymous No.10671891]

>>10671764
>The ways you are using chaotic are not consistent with each other, let alone with any academic definition of chaotic.
Oh please explain further professor.

[Anonymous No.10671894]

>>10671716
A storm in Indonesia is not climate you moron.

[Anonymous No.10672110]

>>10670944
Reality