So /sci/, lets have a resonable discussion

[Anonymous No.11290404]

The Climateshit is a really emotional topic even on here, but i just want to ask you the following and hope you can answer calmly and in good faith

Michael Manns graphs from this pic was used during the early 2000s a lot to justify the CO2 theory. Now narrative has moved away from it and focuses on bushfires, floods and warm summers but then again this would mean nothing if it was way hotter before becasue you could discard the "tipping points" and all those world ending theorys easily.

So i want you guys to look at Michael Manns graph and then at the three ice cores i will post. Three different ones to disperse the "location specific data" argument as good as humany possible so please be intellectually honest here.

Looking at the data, either Manns Graph or the ice cores must be wrong, so which one is it? Or maybe you have some explaination for the discrepancy?

[Anonymous No.11290406]

>>11290404
First Greenland from 2010

[Anonymous No.11290407]

>>11290404
Then Vostok from 1995
I couldnt find a smaller scale or one where they only show temperature so forgive me here

[Anonymous No.11290409]

>>11290404
And one from a different site in Antarctica
dont blame me for the eye cancer that is the choice of coulors here. You can see it if you try

[Anonymous No.11290416]

>>11290406
Note that for the Greenland one, you need to take into account to add like 0.8°C after it stops becasue they stopped retracing after 1855, since there were records from there

[Anonymous No.11290431]

>>11290404
>lets have resonable discussion

No
Just fuck off
This has been discussed enough. Fucking australia is in fire and people like you come along wainting to disturb our solutions again.

We dont have that much time and still talking about this is stupid

If you race loving Nazis want to preserve your white women or you libertarian preserve muh freedom then better get to it and solve this problem
There literally isnt more than ~15 years to fix this, fron there on its a slow decline into extinction

[Anonymous No.11290435]

>>11290431
>falling for bait this hard

[Anonymous No.11290436]

>>11290431
>There literally isnt more than ~15 years to fix this, fron there on its a slow decline into extinction
We had 15 years 30 years ago. Our only solution now is time travel, since the climate alarmists are right. Or were they wrong in the past but this time they're right?

[Anonymous No.11290441]

>>11290435
This is no bait
I asked a simple question
>>11290431
go fuck yourself you fucking autist

[Anonymous No.11290443]

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Anonymous No.11290450]

>>11290443
>In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Go read Svensmark or Shaviv
>Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
yes some did. And they all fail to predict the past as shown in the ice cores hence my question why that is
>like 20 strawmen about people denying its warming
yea go suck a fat one
>CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
The CO2 levels are lower than during the past ice ages

i wont go on here. this site is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11290456]

>>11290450
*most of the past ice ages
so you cunts dont come screeching around because of wording

[Remember to **** No.11290463]

>>11290450
>>11290456
Look anon, just go read that website instead of spamming your thread here, it's boring. Don't come back either until you've read the entire website and have prepared responses backed with sources.

[Anonymous No.11290466]

>>11290463
so you cant answer me and direct me to a site that strawmanifies the whole sceptic argument and constatntly doges questions

>evil denyer lie: hockystick is false
>holy science(TM) debunk: its warm

give me a break

[Remember to **** No.11290472]

>>11290466
Maybe if you actually read the website instead of posting here you'd understand why I'm directing you towards the website. That page isn't the only thing on there you know.

[Anonymous No.11290477]

>>11290472
I am
No joke this makes me belive its a huge scam at best. The site is highly dishonest.

[Anonymous No.11290482]

>>11290404
What the fuck are you talking about you bloody retard?
The first 1 graph is in agreement with Mann's and the second and third have a scale so large that it's impossible to interpret the last 50-100 years.
>good faith
Only way this is in good faith is if you're retarded and don't understand scales at all.

[Remember to **** No.11290483]

>>11290477
Yeah, well fuck off then, you won't be missed.

[Anonymous No.11290499]

>>11290404
why are you comparing a europe only reconstruction to ice cores from greenland, and Antarctica?

[Anonymous No.11290527]

>>11290450

[Anonymous No.11290542]

>>11290450
>Go read Svensmark or Shaviv
both are discredited pseudoscience with no predictive power or empirical evidence

>The CO2 levels are lower than during the past ice ages
Which ice ages?

[Anonymous No.11290543]

>>11290499
Cause he's trying to mislead people

[Anonymous No.11290561]

>>11290542
>both are discredited pseudoscience with no predictive power or empirical evidence
Not op but svensmark proved his theory to be true in an experiment at the danish space institut. He cant prove the extent of the influence the "Svensmark effect" has but so cant the co2 people in regards to their theory
If you actually want to convince someone at least be fair

[Anonymous No.11290565]

>>11290499
>>11290543
Balls model is from europe and we arent talking about that one
Mann claims to represent the whole world temperature, a concept that ball fiercly rejects

Again i myself am not sure who is right but if you want to be convincing dont be so dishonest all the time

[Anonymous No.11290578]

>>11290565
How are you not sure who's right? The GSP2 graph apprears to agree with Mann, the other two are nonsense in this context. Mann's graph shows a rise in the last 75 years or so before 1996, while the smallest unit on the other two graphs are 50 thousand and 100 thousand years respectively.
Where's the problem exactly?

[Anonymous No.11290609]

>>11290578
>How are you not sure who's right?
>The GSP2 graph apprears to agree with Mann

Because of shit like this
Look st the 1000 years mark from greenland and then the one fron mann
Though you cant tell what exactly the mesured temperatures are you can clearly see that the greenland one claims it was around at least the same (given >>11290416) and Mann claims its way wärmer now

Mann also cuts out the downwards fluctuation and just makes it a flat line

Again i am probably in denial here but i really dont want to call you guys liars or cultists but we are seeing the same fucking graph how could you even claim such a thing

[Anonymous No.11290671]

>>11290609
Oh I see what you mean. But isn't Mann's graph supposed to be a global reproduction vs the Greenland graph being a single location?
At best, there isn't sufficient information here to say much of anything (especially since the second and third graphs don't add anything useful).

[Anonymous No.11290683]

>>11290671
Exactly
But why not speak to me and OP in this Tone right from the beginning?
Why always screech and spout half truth?

If our world is truly in danger the evidence should be really overwhelming but in my experience if you go somewhat deeper than scratching beyond "Corrolation" "Greenhouse effect" and "Ocean levels" the whole theory starts to either dissolve into nothing, or you get lied to the face.

Heck the only reason i got into this stuff was to prove a sceptic friend wrong but i ended up a sceptic in denial myself

[Anonymous No.11290688]

>>11290683
You're the one screeching because you're trying to compare two completely different things, why don't you come back when you've actually read Mann's work then we'll talk about it.

[Anonymous No.11290690]

>>11290688
?!?
I literally confirmed what you said
My point from the beginning was that you guys claimed mann was only about europe, which is wrong

What is your Problem?

[Anonymous No.11290701]

>>11290404
>Comparing a thousand year reconstruction to graphs on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years on which the Mann graph’s scale is near invisible

????

[Anonymous No.11290710]

>>11290404
From the wiki on Tim Ball:
>Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor. In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball "did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere," which Ball later admitted.
>In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.
Now, I know just reading a Wiki-article on him does not constitute anything in regards to whether he's reputable or not, but it at least gives some doubt into his expertise (of which, he has none). Give sources to what you're spreading and we'll give it a read.

[Anonymous No.11290712]

>>11290690
if anyone said it was in Europe they were obviously talking about Ball's graph in OP because both are clearly fucking labeled. What are you even whining about now? I honestly can't keep track

[Anonymous No.11290715]

>>11290712
What’s the relevance of Ball’s graph in the first place if it’s only about Europe whereas Mann’s is supposedly global?

[Anonymous No.11290724]

>>11290690
You're talking to more than one person here, just so you know.
You're certainly right that this is a pretty emotional topic though. Partly because a lot of people have seen what they perceive to be some pretty bad bullshit and lies.
Look at it this way: imagine you believe that the science says we're headed for total shit-show of a world unless we work together to prevent it. Now imagine that a bunch of psychopaths paid by giant corporations to lie to everyone were succeeding in preventing the required actions from being taken.
True or not, the belief in this situation makes emotional reactions quite understandable.

[Anonymous No.11290739]

>>11290404
>Tim Ball
You know he's a geographer who lied about his credentials to get on TV as a climate expert, right?

Look, we can't have this debate anymore. You people need to learn the science behind climate change and hurry.
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

[Anonymous No.11290747]

>>11290715
OP is asking which one is true, which means both have to be addressed. Of course the answer is it's a stupid question, and OP should go actually read the papers if he actually cared instead of posting shitty bait threads.

[Anonymous No.11290773]

>>11290561
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00306.1

>An analysis of the first decade of monthly time-scale MODIS cloud anomalies has shown that neither variations in TSI emissions or the GCR flux are dominantly responsible for cloud variability at global or local (geographic) scales at any altitude level. Although correlation analysis suggests that some statistically significant correlations between cloud variability and TSI/GCR variations are present, further investigation of these relationships revealed that such associations either broke down during the data period or were likely connected to internal climate variability and not to solar activity.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50996

>Long‐term analysis of 13 years of MISR data reveals no statistically significant correlations between the CR flux and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height on monthly or interannual timescales. Additionally, there are no statistically significant lagged correlations, and no evidence for any regional correlations.

some further reading here, basically it's pseudoscience trash.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/ further reading here.