Why do people dispute the hockey stick graph?

File: 171 KB, 992x681, 3217F85A-A9BA-43FB-84D4-5A124588F649.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 16:38:42 No.11802101 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people dispute the hockey stick graph?

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 17:30:04 No.11802328 >>11802101 Weird how it changes so drastically around the same time the method of measurement changes.

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 17:44:26 No.11802390 >>11802328 yeah it's almost like the technology for keeping track of global climate came around the same time as industries started ramping up, the main source of the changing climate

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 17:44:49 No.11802393 >>11802101 >blue data stays basically the same

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 18:56:16 No.11802704 >>11802390 How very convenient.

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 18:56:30 No.11802707 >>11802101 >>11802328 Schrodingers climate change. Maybe if we ignore it it'll go away

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 19:02:49 No.11802729

>>11802101
>>11802390
All the data before the modern industry and thermometers comes from the same programs we use to determine tomorrow's weather, except we only have a tidbit of info from past eons vs the thousands of variables needed for tomorrow, and we still get tomorrow's weather wrong. So at best this graph is unreliable speculation.

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 20:35:22 No.11803035

>>11802729
>All the data before the modern industry and thermometers comes from the same programs we use to determine tomorrow's weather
What the fuck are you talking about? Paleoclimatology has nothing to do with predicting the weather. And predicting climate is completely different from predicting weather. Weather is chaotic due to the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. The climate is determined by how much energy enters and leaves the atmosphere while weather is determined by how that energy moves around in the atmosphere.

>So at best this graph is unreliable speculation.
Your argument doesn't make any sense and the climate shown in the graph is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 22:34:37 No.11803368

>>11802328
>Weird how it changes so drastically around the same time the method of measurement changes.
Valid point, but even if you assume that's involved, it's less likely the relative relations would change all that much, so you would still likely see an anomalous shape when viewed time-wise as a whole.

Also, if you ignore and remove the blue part entirely, there's still a pretty dramatic trend for the time range the thermometers cover.

At this point there can really only be debates about magnitude, timelines, and severity of impacts. The trend is undeniable.

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 23:19:58 No.11803492

>>11803035
That's pretty much my point. They use the same program to determine both climate and weather, they just input a much longer timeline for climate, but that program was only intended for weather.

This is why a lot of meteorologists are climate change skeptics, cause even they know that program aint shit for what it's designed to do

>>	Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 23:23:07 No.11803502 >>11803492 What are you even on about? Paleoclimatology data has nothing to do with weather modeling

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 23:31:06 No.11803512
File: 105 KB, 800x533, V3D67PEEWZEFRDDTIRV6T7RZZ4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

People who have access to far more accurate information than any of us plebs can get make decisions that clearly indicate they don't think climate change will be a big issue. That sort of thing makes people rather skeptical. Pic related.

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 23:35:51 No.11803516

>>11803492
>They use the same program to determine both climate and weather, they just input a much longer timeline for climate, but that program was only intended for weather.
Completely untrue, as far as I know. Do you have a source saying otherwise?

Also, how is the graph in the OP related to that at all?

>This is why a lot of meteorologists are climate change skeptics
The American Meteorological Society aren't: https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

>>Global temperatures were last on par with the present ones in the previous Interglacial Period (125,000 years ago), when sea level was 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today. Projected warming over the next century will likely place global temperatures in a range not seen in millions of years of geologic history.

Do you have any sources from the past 5 years showing a lot of them are climate change skeptics? And even if that were true, it's still a different field and their knowledge and expertise doesn't necessarily transfer over; and that software thing you're talking about is pure horseshit.

>>11803512
>People who have access to far more accurate information than any of us plebs can get make decisions that clearly indicate they don't think climate change will be a big issue. That sort of thing makes people rather skeptical. Pic related.
You realize they could just turn out to be wrong, right? For one, they don't necessarily have access to even slightly more accurate information, let alone far more accurate information.

Also, a lot of extremely wealthy people do talk about the dangers of climate change. The ones who don't tend to have more right-leaning political beliefs, which are associated with lack of belief in AGW.

Anonymous Mon, Jun 15, 2020 23:41:38 No.11803525

>>11803492
>They use the same program to determine both climate and weather
No they don't. Which "program" are you talking about?

And you completely failed to explain what paleoclimate data has to do with anything or what weather being chaotic has to do with climate.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 00:03:18 No.11803567

>>11803516
The picture I posted was the mansion that former President Obama just purchased; while he certainly talked a lot about the dangers climate change, with numerous mentions of the sea level rising & more destructive hurricanes, he then went and bought a mansion on an island right by the sea. And yes I do think former heads of state have access to more accurate information than is publicly available.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 00:34:22 No.11803624 >>11803567 I bet he bought more than just a house. That estate must be huge and will probably allow him or his family to move the house farther inland if needed.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 00:39:16 No.11803634 >>11803567 And do you have any evidence Obama will keep the property for his kids? Or will it be sold off in a few decades? Did you actually think before you made this argument?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 05:06:19 No.11804089 >>11802390 You don't get it, the proxies used don't reflect the current changes today, so why would they reflect the similar highs of 2200 and 1050 years ago?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 07:35:48 No.11804326 >>11804089 >You don't get it, the proxies used don't reflect the current changes today Source?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 07:37:34 No.11804330 >>11803634 Obama is gay he doesn't have any kids.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 07:41:18 No.11804333 >>11804330 How can a Muslim be gay?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 07:45:58 No.11804342 >>11804333 SABUD is a weird branch of islam. Michelle was literally born a boy.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:06:32 No.11804377

Cause we're still all waiting on just one region specific verifiable claim that can be made about climate.

Of the form variable x (rainfall, temperature, ocean height) in region y (something resolute enough for meaningful policy to be enacted e.g. not the planet, but a country or region - western europe/ europe/ sub-saharan africa...) will, on average increase/decrease by z+/-a over the next b years (10,20,30...longer, doesn't really matter)

>inb4 read IPCC bro
I have, but have never seen any such statistic. Risk groupings based on global temperature and O'Neil scales are as far as they go.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:16:21 No.11804394 >>11804377 >Cause we're still all waiting on just one region specific verifiable claim that can be made about climate. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/regional-climate-projections/ >I have, but have never seen any such statistic. You're lying.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:21:02 No.11804406 just read the IPCC emails, they fucked with their data so hard the hockey stick is completely indefensible in 2020, it already was in 2010, its a whole load of fucking bullshit and horrible methodology. read their emails

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:25:45 No.11804414 >>11804406 >just read the IPCC emails Which emails? >they fucked with their data so hard How?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:28:16 No.11804417 cloud cover has the most effect on global temperatures, what affects total cloud cover?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:29:11 No.11804419 File: 28 KB, 588x209, 2020-06-16_14-28.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11804414 theres much much more in there

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:35:04 No.11804431 Sometimes I feel like /x/ is the more honest board. /sci/ is packed with IQ and HBD deniers.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:46:41 No.11804456 >>11804417 >cloud cover has the most effect on global temperatures Source? >what affects total cloud cover? Temperature. It's part of a feedback loop. Also, aerosol emissions.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:47:44 No.11804460 >>11804419 There's much more innocuous discussion that retarded deniers don't understand? https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:51:08 No.11804465 >>11802101 Is this the same twat constantly reposting climate change catastrophe drama? Just go pick a fist fight. Don't be scared, you won't die.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:53:36 No.11804471 Because they want to continue to pollute the environment so they stimulate the economy to make as much money as possible because they're greedy /entire global warming discussion forever

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:55:21 No.11804477 >>11804419 How is this an "IPCC email?"

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 08:56:34 No.11804483
File: 12 KB, 588x88, 2020-06-16_14-51.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11804460
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

What the fuck kind of website have you linked me to bro? I am literally laughing right now, it even has a "Basic" tab that condenses the thing down to a single sentence for retards. What the fuck man.

Still laughing, lets take a look at what it actually says, notably this:
>"Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline".

Given the above why the fuck does the original email sentence literally go like
>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline.

Are these skeptic sites made specifically for idiots? That sentence literally says that the Nature trick is meant to hide the decline and you cannot understand that any other way. Why are they hiding ANYTHING?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 09:00:12 No.11804493
File: 32 KB, 624x275, 2020-06-16_14-58.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11804477
because those people have contributed heavily to the "Assessment Reports" and have sat on editorial review boards of MULTIPLE climate science journals literally barring from publication any papers that went against their results.

Michael Mann is the guy who came up with the hockey stick in OP's picture and a central part of this clique. This isn't just "internet drama" like that retard above said, this is central to science and shows what science has become in the 21st century. This is BIG in 2020 still.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 09:01:03 No.11804495

>>11802328
it's like that by construction.
out of all the possible records from 1000 to 2000 they consider 'good proxies' those that correlate with the red measurements. it is just that selection what creates the whole trend.
you could use an ensemble of random walks and apply the same selection criterium, and you would obtain exactly the same thing, because outside the 1900-2000 range where the choice is made, a random walk trend is flat by definition.
so the graph is like that because it cannot possibly be other way

>>11803368
>there's still a pretty dramatic trend for the time range the thermometers cover.
perhaps, but you cannot say if it just started then, or much soones, or there was a previous decrease

it's just a sham. but I honestly believe that at the beginning they just did not know what they where fucking doing.
at some point, though, money and careerism become involved and well, here we are

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 09:05:51 No.11804508 >>11802101 Ideological "reasons"

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 09:45:07 No.11804604 >>11804471 Silly developing countries and poor people, wanting to increase their standard of living. You're a retarded hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 09:46:59 No.11804611 >>11804456 Source? Lol. Physics? Clouds and the magnetic field are the two most obvious ingredients missing. Energy dissipation and entropy is the one nobody talks about; ie weather lol

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 10:03:17 No.11804642

>>11804611

Then there's the nonlinear feedback from photosynthesis.

More co2, more photosynthesis, more plants, more photosynthesis, more temperature, more photosynthesis...

There's a max (local attractor) and the earth is more green from space now than we've ever observed.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 10:35:46 No.11804723

>>11804471
this statement is retarded even for the brain dead standards of brainwashed npc's

nobody wants 'to pollute the environment' for its own sake or because it 'stimulates the economy'. pollution in itself does not stimulate anything. nobody 'makes as much money as possible' just polluting things. even if they are greedy, which makes no sense here. just stop throwing up half digested slogans and building sentences upside down. you understand nothing, not even elementary logic or grammar, so just shut up.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:06:44 No.11804788 >>11804394 No predictions in the format i was looking for. As i expected. Apart from for temperature, but we'll see if those predictions hold i guess.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:21:42 No.11804816 >carbon absorbs infrared rays >carbon re emits infrared rays >less heat escapes earth

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:28:36 No.11804831
File: 643 KB, 1920x1181, iStock-841386490-e1535062684131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11802101
Because they would have to make deep changes to their life if it's real.

It's also a threat to the "American way of life" which was invented by car manufacturers of the 1950s. Suburbia is an artificial way of living never seen before in history. It is highly destructive and unsustainable yet Americans will defend it with their lives, or even worse yet, with YOUR lives. So they must absolutely deny anything that would bring harm to suburbia. Everyone must own their own home with a white picket fence and a two car garage. This is America's new religion.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:39:51 No.11804868

Just the way they treated the guy who came up with this is 100% solid evidence that any dispute of the anthropogenic origins of global warming is fueled (no pun intended) by greed and greed alone. There's no scientific motivation. I think they should just admit it and be done. Everyone loves money, it probably won't change a single thing, it would just make them honest.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:46:40 No.11804888

>>11804483
>I am literally laughing right now, it even has a "Basic" tab that condenses the thing down to a single sentence for retards.
LOL no, the basic tab gives you a basic version of the article which is several paragraphs long. You might find it useful since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

>Given the above why the fuck does the original email sentence literally go like
>>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline.
It doesn't literally go like that, you just removed everything in between the beginning and end. Mike's Nature trick refers to adding instrumental data starting at 1981 while hiding the decline refers to removing tree ring data starting at 1961. They are two different things in one sentence.

>Are these skeptic sites made specifically for idiots?
Yes, they are made specifically for you.

>Why are they hiding ANYTHING?
You would know if you actually read the link.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 11:48:46 No.11804894 >Another climate thread Aren't you guys bored of this. You aren't going to change anyones mind. Do something useful.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 12:00:16 No.11804934

>>11804894
We're certainly not going to change people's minds who must invoke grand conspiracy theories
>>11804868
In order to be correct. However, we will prevent people who don't know much about the subject from being influenced by the same. If we let bad ideas remain unchallenged then people will only see bad ideas.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 12:01:56 No.11804940 >>11804934 Its /sci. No one uses it seriously. Come here for a laugh and nothing else.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 12:59:34 No.11805178

>>11804493
>because those people have contributed heavily to the "Assessment Reports"
So? I assume they have other things in common. What makes the email an "IPCC" email? They don't even mention the IPCC.

>and have sat on editorial review boards of MULTIPLE climate science journals literally barring from publication any papers that went against their results.
That doesn't explain why you referred to them as IPCC emails.

>This isn't just "internet drama" like that retard above said, this is central to science and shows what science has become in the 21st century.
It's simply some retarded deniers taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting them because they don't have any actual arguments against the science.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:08:00 No.11805212

>>11804495
>out of all the possible records from 1000 to 2000 they consider 'good proxies' those that correlate with the red measurements. it is just that selection what creates the whole trend.
Source?

>you could use an ensemble of random walks and apply the same selection criterium, and you would obtain exactly the same thing
So proxies are random? What is the point of comparing the results of two different processes? Also, the trend is not flat, it is slightly decreasing, so by your own argument is not the average of random walks.

>perhaps, but you cannot say if it just started then, or much soones, or there was a previous decrease
We can, since we have proxies.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:10:35 No.11805220

>>11804611
>Source? Lol. Physics?
What physics tells you it has the most affect on global temperature?

>Clouds and the magnetic field are the two most obvious ingredients missing.
Clouds aren't missing and the magnetic fields isn't important.

>Energy dissipation and entropy is the one nobody talks about; ie weather lol
LOL, energy dissipation and entropy is what all temperature models are based on. You have no idea what you're taking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:10:54 No.11805222 >>11804831 It would mean the end of Chinese industry and punish developing nations much worse than the first world.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:11:38 No.11805225 >>11804642 >Then there's the nonlinear feedback from photosynthesis. Already well known.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:14:56 No.11805236 >>11802101 What are the gray bars? The upper end of the gray bars for recent times don't seem to be out of the historical range. The bottom ends appear to be closer to the middle than usual. Is that what all the fuss is about?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:26:30 No.11805274

>>11805178
>It's simply some retarded deniers
fine. you are the 97% right? 'deniers' (of anything, apparently) are negligible. then just why all the denial on your side? all the vitriol and blatant bad faith?

there's no big conspiracy here. it's just bad, very bad science made, unsurprisingly, by very bad scientists. you do not become 'climate scientist' gladly. at least not a decade or more ago. that's what you become when you are not very good at maths and most physical fields. I've worked in one of the biggest usa institutions for atm and climate research and I know what I'm talking about.

so everything started as a very bad compilation of low quality research. but then it got traction. 'societal implications'. which is important for grabbing money in modern science. and then, obviously, public recognition. everybody loves to be a savior apparently nowadays (just switch on your smartphone). the hero on the news. we-were-saving-the-fuckin-planet. awsome.
the money. the career. the pussy. all mixed. what a cocktail. what a ride.
from that moment on, the level of conflict of interests was so massive that making the simplest honest calculation was just impossible. just running some of the numerical models costs half a million dollars for a few days. it's just a impossible to state anything outside the strictly defined discourse without pissing so many people and their interests that you just simply cant.

96% consensus they say. they are unable to even understand the levels of idiocy and irony involved in that statement alone. but just saying this makes you a 'denier'. of what? nobody knows. nobody cares apparently.

fine. you won. take all the money, which is all that really matters in the end. but this thread started with some anons like >>11802101 making a few questions and comments, and some answers debatable or not, more or less technical, have been provided. everything else is just smoke.

and the methodology underlying that hockey fucking plot is a joke

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:27:19 No.11805278

The original research done by Mann was proven to be done poorly in order to produce a specific result. It is Mann’s fault that this result is not trustworthy, he poisoned the well from the beginning with poor scientific standards and political motivation. It may be that the result is confirmed by other research, I’m merely explaining how it is that it came to be distrusted.

Science as a whole is facing a crisis of political intrusion. As research becomes more and more specialized, fewer and fewer people are qualified to review it. The result is that prestigious sources like Nature and Science have unqualified people reviewing papers, and defaulting to “consensus” and other preconceived conclusions to review and determine what should be published.

The climate change issue is muddy because even though the link between average temperatures and the industrial revolution seems reasonably solid, many of the solutions proposed by activists rely on much greater leaps of logic, and have no such solid grounding in research. Notice that the major fossil fuel industries are almost entirely on board now with climate change. Activists might see this as a win for the environmental cause, an act of submission on the part of the corporations. I see the opposite, I see the capture of the environmental cause by the enemy. Capitalists have been able to channel the fight against climate change into path that don’t threaten their overall position as masters of the economy, and instead strengthen their position, and allow us to maintain our overall direction of accumulation and consumption. Examples of this are carbon taxes and green energy investments. Nobody wants to address the real systemic changes that could potentially effect the climate, as well as all our other environmental issues like deforestation, soil depletion, mass extinction, etc. Such changes revolve around reducing total energy consumption, contracting supply lines, etc.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:39:58 No.11805320

>>11804493
Peer review is one of the stains on academia and has contributed to the politicization of science. Science got along fine without "peer review" before. It's an invasive notion foisted on the scientific community by the medical community (not scientists).

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:45:45 No.11805332

Because it's being used to create an exorbitantly inefficient energy infrastructure that destroys local environments and raises electricity prices while the fat cats on top profit from the idiots that buy into it. It is on top of that, less safe than nuclear by a wide statistical margin.

Do you know how much concrete, steel and electrical circuits it takes to replace one nuclear plant with 'other' zero-emission energy sources? Do you think gathering and manufacturing that doesn't have a toll on the very thing you're trying to save?

Renewable isn't a solution, it's a market.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:45:58 No.11805333 >>11804788 >No predictions in the format i was looking for. As i expected. There are quantitative temperature and precipitation projections for each region starting on the 8th page. Why are you lying?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:47:38 No.11805336 >>11803512 federally subsided flood insurance m8 when it goes under they'll make money and you'll pay for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 13:51:32 No.11805344 >>11805333 There is no time frame.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 14:10:52 No.11805419 Fuckers, watch this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_0-xSv-v4

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 15:54:43 No.11805733

>>11805274
>then just why all the denial on your side? all the vitriol and blatant bad faith?
LOL, nice projection. I have mountains of scientific evidence on my side. Your willful ignorance of that evidence is textbook denial.

>there's no big conspiracy here.
There's no small one either.

>it's just bad, very bad science made, unsurprisingly, by very bad scientists.
Is this a Trump quote? You can call it "very bad" all you want but until you explain how you aren't actually saying anything.

>I've worked in one of the biggest usa institutions for atm and climate research and I know what I'm talking about.
Then why are you unable to come up with a substantive argument? tl:dr on the rest of your drunken rant.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 15:57:31 No.11805745 >>11805733 Not him. But you are definitely a virgin.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 15:59:37 No.11805753 Does our magnetosphere weakening by 15% over the last century havve any effect on temperature?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:01:20 No.11805758

>>11805278
>The original research done by Mann was proven to be done poorly in order to produce a specific result.
Source? The "hockey stick" has been confirmed by several different methods, more modern than what Mann used. The only ones crying about it are deniers stuck on old taking points.

>Science as a whole is facing a crisis of political intrusion.
The mass denial of scientific facts which are politically inconvenient is indeed an intrusion, just not the kind you're taking about.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:04:49 No.11805769
File: 51 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11805320
>Peer review is one of the stains on academia
LOL.

>has contributed to the politicization of science.
So your denial of climate science has nothing to do with your politics, right?

>Science got along fine without "peer review" before
In the 1600s? You're fucking hilarious.

>It's an invasive notion foisted on the scientific community by the medical community (not scientists).
Source?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:08:14 No.11805782

>>11805419
>argument boils down to "you can't know nuffin"
>THEY'RE INFLATING THE ESTIMATES GOYS, LOOK, THEY WANT TO CRASH HUMANITY
>see, the green lobby is corrupt, see, can't you see it?

I'm sick of the conspiracy. Link something that directly disproves CO2's greenhouse effect, not some bitch who rambles on for 30 minutes about politics and "muh China, muh big oil".

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:10:05 No.11805789

>>11805344
Incorrect:

>Regional averages of temperature and precipitation projections from a set of 21 global models in the MMD for the A1B scenario. The mean temperature and precipitation responses are fi rst averaged for each model over all available realisations of the 1980 to 1999 period from the 20th Century Climate in Coupled Models (20C3M) simulations and the 2080 to 2099 period of A1B. Computing the difference between these two periods, the table shows the minimum, maximum, median (50%), and 25 and 75% quartile values among the 21 models, for temperature (°C) and precipitation (%) change.

Now are you lying about what it says, are you lying about having read it, or are you just illiterate?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:11:23 No.11805792 File: 58 KB, 456x365, c18ecb768453378f9ed0688950190855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11805745

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:12:46 No.11805797 >>11805789 No im just winding you up. Not even the original anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:13:49 No.11805800 File: 42 KB, 800x800, 1583774938680.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11805792 >Hitchens

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:14:55 No.11805802

>>11805753
Not any globally significant effect no. It's theorized that this effects cloud cover via seeding from cosmic rays, but the effect of the Sun's magnetic shielding is much more important than Earth's and its variance dwarfs the Earth's. And cosmic ray flux remains trendless despite both.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:15:24 No.11805803 "Hide the decline" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlCNrdna9CI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_reUlZhbU4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvhouGwqVt4

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:25:44 No.11805842 Does anyone here actually know the nature of the relationship between carbon-dioxide concentration and temperature?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:30:34 No.11805859

>>11805842
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs photons and convert some of the energy into heat, then re-emit a photon at a lower energy state, oxygen does not. If you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, it increases the amount of heat energy at the surface, energy which would have been reflected back out into space by the Earth's surface.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:33:46 No.11805873

The general circulation models (GCMs) that purport to simulate climate are interesting experiments, and it’s not unimpressive that they can be made to produce results that look at least reasonable. But they model the atmosphere with grid cells 100 miles on a side, and attempt to use this to predict the state of the atmosphere—a chaotic system—for the next century. This does not pass the laugh test.

There is simply no scientific way to verify or falsify the accuracy of any such piece of software. It is not practical to perturb Earth’s climate, perturb your model’s climate, and test that they both respond in the same way. And there is no other way to test a model. In the end, all you have is a curve that records past temperature, and a piece of software that generates future temperature. Perhaps if we could watch the predicted and actual curves match up for a century or so, we could generate something like statistical significance. But we can’t. And hindcasting—fitting the models to data from the past—overfits, and is completely worthless.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:34:49 No.11805878 >>11805859 Not the mechanism, the relationship. Linear, quadratic, quartic, some other form?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:40:41 No.11805895

the problem is not that climate changes, it's the speed at which it does so. and humans do contribute to this greatly with greenhouse gases.

ITS CLEARLY OBSERVABLE THAT INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS CAUSED AN ACCELERATION IN CLIMATECHANGE
>>11802328
idiot, a measurement method is ADDED not CHANGED, it's only MORE information that overlaps as you can (or cant) see.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:41:15 No.11805899

>>11805859
The grids are just a necessary condition as a result of modeling with differential equations, i.e. the Navier stokes. There isn't an elementary solution for each infinitesimal point. It doesn't imply that it fails to encapsulate chaotic behavior, in fact without it, the model wouldn't even be possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:42:59 No.11805906 File: 738 KB, 1440x1557, 1580153085189.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11802101 Oh gee I don't know, what's all that gray stuff on the left side of the graph? Science is so confusing.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:43:04 No.11805907 >>11805899 Meant for >>11805873 >>11805878 It's a logarithmic relationship as far as I know, so an exponential increase in carbon would produce a linear heating of the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:49:20 No.11805925 >>11805800 See >>11805792

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:56:48 No.11805954

>>11805907
You are correct.
Doubling CO2 concentration will produce a total increase in total radiation.
Running through the math you get a 3.8 watt/m2 increase in radiation. It is currently 1400 watt/m2 so thats a 0.3% increase per doubling of CO2 (caused directly by co2).

More info here http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:57:51 No.11805956 >>11805954 constant not total increase*

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 16:57:58 No.11805957 >>11805803 McIntyre is retarded. https://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:06:59 No.11805981 >>11805957 see >>11805792

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:10:07 No.11805993 >>11805981 That would be correct if that anon didn't post a link to a rebuttal.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:13:33 No.11806010 >>11805993 "rebuttal" If you want to call it that. Barely addresses one point of the many McIntyre made. But its ok science blog with some quotes will rescue you from having to use your critical faculties.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:14:22 No.11806014 >>11805954 I don't know, I've just been told our current output of CO2 will result in a 3C increase in temperature before the end of the century.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:14:52 No.11806017

>>11805758
>The "hockey stick" has been confirmed
the hockey stick is a meme and an embarrassment. you can reproduce that kind of ((behaviour)) with a random number generator

>are politically inconvenient
politically inconvenient truths is just another embarrassment of meme. inconvenient for fucking whom? the automotive industry? they need absolutely need new regulations as drastic as possible because they cannot sell more cars (even the high end car market is saturated in western europe). they need any excuse to make new models and sell them to people that have perfectly functional and actually optimal ones. and government aid packages for 'climate neutral' designs is just perfect for this and a market in decline. oil industry? oil is now essentially free, you cannot beat that and ironically even that industry would love to change that. they'll do eventually and will stay on top of any other development in energy. so who else? who's that mysterious dark force for which all that climate junk is so inconvenient?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:19:30 No.11806032 File: 33 KB, 350x414, climate sensitivity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11806014 But this increase depends on climate sensitivity. Which varies wildly depending on how cloud cover is modeled (pic related)

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:20:12 No.11806034

>>11806017
Non CO2 emitting cars take millions in development costs, they can't just build on top of the engine designs they already have. Coal companies will either have to completely shut down or transition to renewables, again which entails completely discarding ALL power plant developments they made before now, ect. There are uncountably many industries who would have to completely scrap every design they currently have.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:23:15 No.11806041 >>11806032 Okay? So it's most likely going to be 2-2.5 C increase. This doesn't make me feel any better. We've already past 1C warming.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:35:48 No.11806073 >>11805842 It's called the greenhouse effect. You'll learn about if you reach the 5th grade.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:43:08 No.11806082

>>11805873
>But they model the atmosphere with grid cells 100 miles on a side, and attempt to use this to predict the state of the atmosphere—a chaotic system—for the next century.
The climate is not a chaotic system.

>This does not pass the laugh test.
This is not an argument.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:56:46 No.11806105

>>11805954
>Running through the math you get a 3.8 watt/m2 increase in radiation.
That is radiative forcing without feedbacks. The actual warming response is much greater.

>It is currently 1400 watt/m2 so thats a 0.3% increase per doubling of CO2 (caused directly by co2).
What is that percentage supposed to tell us? It's like comparing your caloric intake to the calories stored in your entire body.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:57:52 No.11806107 >>11806010 Which point does it not address? McIntyre competed misrepresented the email.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 17:59:27 No.11806114 >>11806073 What experiments have been done on the greenhouse effect other then putting C02 in a glass box. Does a glass box accurately represent the earth's atmosphere in space?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:01:51 No.11806121

>>11806017
>the hockey stick is a meme and an embarrassment.
Then why have you failed to point out a single flaw in it?

>you can reproduce that kind of ((behaviour)) with a random number generator
I don't instance your argument. Are you trying to imply it was produced with a random number generator?

>inconvenient for fucking whom?
For you, obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time ranting against it with zero substance.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:03:11 No.11806123

>>11806017
Not to mention EV will be far more profitable in the long run as they require far less parts therefore a smaller supply chain and less employees. Layoffs due to EVs are already starting and they aren't lowering the price. Oil producers are simply shifting from energy to plastic to make up for the loss of profit.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:05:43 No.11806129 >>11806032 >Which varies wildly depending on how cloud cover is modeled (pic related) Your pic is wildly outdated, more than 30 years old.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:08:31 No.11806142 >>11806114 The greenhouse effect in Earth's atmosphere has been directly observed and measured. http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf Did you even try to research this before asking dumb questions?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:11:15 No.11806154 >>11805769 >In the 1600s? Try all of history prior to WWII.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:12:48 No.11806159 >>11806129 In the same situation atm. If you can find more recent literature which shows tighter bounds please link

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:14:07 No.11806161 >>11806154 Nope, peer review was prevalent before WWII

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:14:12 No.11806162 >>11806105 Nothing. My point was more any climate model is entirely reliant on the sensitivity parameter, as discussed in the link.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:18:09 No.11806172

>>11806114
There's a physical component to it. But this physical component is too small to be any concern. It's around 1°C per doubling.

That's why the models have a "forcing" added to it that's anywhere between 200% to 1000% greater than the physical effect.

The people doing the models know it's there and that's it's a huge effect, because they would be unemployed without its presence, they just haven't figured out how it actually happens yet.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:20:07 No.11806179

>>11806034
>Non CO2 emitting cars take millions in development costs, they can't just build on top of the engine designs they already have
yes. obviously there cannot and will not be an abrupt transition but a series of incremental improvements. that's perfect actually. you don't want a perfect product but a series of improved versions. all this will be expensive and subsidies will be provided. that's exactly what was done for example to the aerospatial industry and why we have cheap air travel now (or used to). it has to be done again for planes also. probably via military budgets (again).
all this is just wonderful news for industries that are for a while already in decadence.

>Coal companies will either have to completely shut down or transition to renewables,
coal stays whatever happens. industry and heavy industry require quality energy: that's coal, hydro nuclear. you cannot make steel concentrating sunrays. consider germany: it's not going nuclear (for internal and external continental political stability), it may rely on french nuclear (again for political stability) but requires coal and will continue using that whatever happens. nobody *nobody* wants dismantling germany's industry.

>There are uncountably many industries who would have to completely scrap every design they currently have
not so many, and the ones that have to are already stagnating and would recover vitality doing anything that force them to change (it could be for the climate, a war, or a new trend in colour) it's similar to what the fashion industry discovered a long time ago.

in any case, there are no large hidden conspiracies against inconvenient truths. in fact, everything will be more than convenient for the most part.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:22:43 No.11806185 >>11806179 >coal stays whatever happens. Gas is a decent alternative. >nobody nobody wants dismantling germany's industry. You underestimate how hateful, blind and/or short-sighted the environmentalists are.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:23:13 No.11806188 >>11805220 >Clouds aren't missing there are several papers that address how the IPCC studies don't account for low cloud cover which yields an incorrect value of the sun's radiation forcing

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:24:57 No.11806191

>>11806161
>>11806154
>>11805769
The problem isn't peer review. This has always been done (groups of scientists have always decided what is worth their time).

I think the problem is 2 fold
1) Oversaturation of publications. Literally millions every year. A lot of this is not genuine research, and is wasting a lot of peoples time. One country in particular is notorious for this.

2) Is falsification still rewarded? The only way scientific institutions can combat human bias is if they value falsification. Proving people wrong is one of the most valuable safety nets. I worry there is too great a push on creating new theories (leading to 1) than checking/ falsifying where possible the data.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:29:19 No.11806199

>>11806105
>It's like comparing your caloric intake to the calories stored in your entire body.
This is called a diet...you in fact do compare caloric intake with body mass. If you double, or halve, your caloric intake you will very quickly notice a change in the calories stored in your body.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:30:28 No.11806203 >>11806159 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Bw2XU3FCw9a__Z5Y9YGfCWU-ohzuhFJ8_gcGyIsTECE/htmlview Modern studies have a range between 2.1 and 4.7.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:31:29 No.11806205 >>11806105 Plus the calculation is just a nice quantification. 0.3% increase in radiation/m2 for a doubling of current co2 is just a nice metric to know

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:32:05 No.11806208

>>11806121
>>the hockey stick is a meme and an embarrassment.
>Then why have you failed to point out a single flaw in it?
because for example:
>>11804495

>>you can reproduce that kind of ((behaviour)) with a random number generator
>I don't instance your argument. Are you trying to imply it was produced with a random number generator?
read
>>11804495

>>inconvenient for fucking whom?
>For you, obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time ranting against it with zero substance
I couldn't care less. I was just giving a couple of answers to some anon. then I was dragged to some stupid rhetoric battle. you have no fucking idea about me, my motivation or apparently anything at all so don't speculate and stop seeing conspiracies.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:42:53 No.11806239

>>11806185
>>coal stays whatever happens.
>Gas is a decent alternative.
exactly. so exactly.
I doubt it was by design, because it is just so perfect, but we might end with a german industry, sustained by french nuclear and russian gas.
that may be considered historical ironic to the max, but that could be the most stable and safest equilibrium in centuries

>>nobody *nobody* wants dismantling germany's industry.
>You underestimate how hateful, blind and/or short-sighted the environmentalists are.
I must confess, that since the last few months craziness, I believe in nothing and trust nothing anymore. yes, that's an actual possibility now. a bunch of deranged retarded blowing up the fucking world for some cultish ignorant belief

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:43:54 No.11806246 >>11806203 I mean the averages between max and min put it between 1.98 and 4.87. But the range of data is from 0-10. 0r 0.38-9 if you ignore edwards et al 07

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:47:29 No.11806253 so is there much to this given he's a geologist. https://electroverse.net/25-simple-bullet-points-proving-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming-by-a-geologist-for-a-change-dr-roger-higgs/

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:48:06 No.11806258

>>11806162
Yes, and how is that relevant? The link is misleading propaganda. It ignores that all methods of calculating ECS have sources of uncertainty, but they all essentially agree that the range is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. His calculation that it's close to 0 contradicts all published research.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:49:39 No.11806266

>>11806172
>That's why the models have a "forcing" added to it that's anywhere between 200% to 1000% greater than the physical effect.
Not a forcing, climate sensitivity. Feedback loops are no less physical than radiative forcing. Stop posting if you are just going to make shit up.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:51:04 No.11806272 >>11806188 >there are several papers that address how the IPCC studies don't account for low cloud cover which yields an incorrect value of the sun's radiation forcing Such as? Do deniers have a hard time citing scientific sources?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 18:57:03 No.11806291 >>11806246 Learn how confidence intervals work.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:02:22 No.11806306

>>11806258
I think propaganda is a bit harsh dont you? There's back of the envolope maths.
Cloud cover is very important in determining the climate sensitivity.
GCMs struggle simulating cloud cover as such systems are resolved in hours/kms not decades/100s of kms.
All this assuming the parameter is constant.

Its just nice to know the results of back of the envelope calculations before you delve into literature.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:02:26 No.11806307 >>11806253 >so is there much to this No. Don't listen to climate denial "gotcha" websites.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:03:52 No.11806309 >>11806266 >Stop posting if you are just going to make shit up. Why? Climate "scientists" do this all the time, such as with the climate sensitivity and no one asks them to shut the fuck up?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:04:23 No.11806312 >>11806291 Well your spreadsheet wasn't exactly well titled. But ok i see that now. Also this is not a study showing how cloud cover affects the parameter. They are just parameters.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:04:55 No.11806314 >>11806191 This is all very vague. What does it have to do with climate science?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:05:56 No.11806316 >>11806208 Read the replies to those posts. You're out of your depth.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:06:58 No.11806319 >>11806253 Yes, I didnt read the link but climate science is made by a bunch of braindead amateurs with megalomania so even laymen finds a lot of errors within the official narrative.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:13:44 No.11806336

>>11806314
Nothing its more general.
http://blog.cdnsciencepub.com/21st-century-science-overload/#:~:text=You're%20not%20imagining%20things,papers%20are%20published%20each%20year.

I guess i could say climate science is most at risk of being misrepresented (by both sides) as they can pull any paper out of their ass.

Climate also has political implications. External countries could publish false data/studies to encourage dissent.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:14:25 No.11806340 >>11806309 Where have they made shit up, exactly? We already know you have no clue about what you're attempting to talk about, yet you persist in trying to fool people into thinking you know anything about climatology. Pathetic.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:17:59 No.11806352

>>11806306
>I think propaganda is a bit harsh dont you? There's back of the envolope maths.
Then why is the headline of the article based on it?

>Cloud cover is very important in determining the climate sensitivity.
>GCMs struggle simulating cloud cover as such systems are resolved in hours/kms not decades/100s of kms.
No one argued otherwise. There is a reason why climate sensitivity is given as a range and projections are given as a range. So again, what is your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:22:50 No.11806360 >>11806352 The headline says climate sensitivity is probably quite small. If you think this is propaganda...what are you on?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:25:41 No.11806369

>>11806340
>Where have they made shit up, exactly?
Where have they not?

Why do you persist in believing in the climate narrative when they have proven themself wrong on every single point they talk about.

If the world had less shit-eating apologists that didn't swallow the "new model is really right, this time it is different"-cycle that climate and enviro-media have been stuck in for the last 50 years then maybe we would get some actual science done.

>The tIpPiNg pOiNt is 12 years away!
Just like it was in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 and just like it is in current year.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:26:11 No.11806371 >>11806340 The methane catastrophy that was going to melt the arctic didnt happen. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:31:58 No.11806381 >>11806360 I've already explained why it's propaganda. Your excuse was that it's back of the envelope math. Please explain how drawing a conclusion from back of the envelope math is valid.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:33:00 No.11806384

>>11806369
>Where have they not?
So you can't even provide one example. You're pathetic.

>hy do you persist in believing in the climate narrative when they have proven themself wrong on every single point they talk about.
Like what?

>>The tIpPiNg pOiNt is 12 years away!
Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:34:26 No.11806387 >>11806381 I didnt say anything about conclusions. I said its nice to have an idea of the back of the envelope math. You're projecting climate denial onto me. quit it.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:34:26 No.11806388 >>11806371 The vast majority of climatologists said it wouldn't happen. So apparently when climatologists are right they're wrong, and when they're wrong they're wrong.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:35:56 No.11806390

>>11802707
Good thing Schrodingers cat is a thought experiment not based in reality.

>>11806142
>>11806172
>>11806142
>>11806073
>Inert gas does things

Off yourselves you dumbasses. Water causes more greenhouse effect than CO2 could ever dream of, maybe we should limit our consumption and tax water now.

>>11805842
CO2 is an insulator. Meaning it's inert and literally does nothing. Make of that what you wish, but don't misinform people by saying that it "Causes" or does something.

>>11806114
>Does a glass box accurately represent the earth's atmosphere in space?

No because space has no properties and therefore doesn't actually exist. You can debate me on that if you wish. Glass at the very least has properties and material to be measured.

>>11802101
Where are the ice core samples, tree rings, and coral from scientists who gathered it 1000 years ago?
>No all this data is based on no actual empirical evidence from those time periods, it is just the data that is being used to assume what those other periods data would have been like.

Dropped.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:35:58 No.11806391 >>11806387 >I didnt say anything about conclusions. Yes, I did. >I said its nice to have an idea of the back of the envelope math. It's even nicer to read articles whose headlines aren't bullshit.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:36:54 No.11806394

>>11806381
>Please explain how drawing a conclusion from back of the envelope math is valid.

This is also why the climate models are worthless and a waste of computing resources.

The climate scientists are incompetent mathematicians, incompetent statisticians and incompetent coders. Whatever model they can produce is therefore never better than a back of the envelope calculation.

It's not even garbage in garbage out at this point, even with pristine data the end result is garbage because the models are garbage by design.

It's not even a controversial statement, software developers everywhere agree that contemporary climate models are worthless.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:41:17 No.11806402
File: 48 KB, 600x632, 1583444470962.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11806391
Please go on reacting like this to some simple math. Its very amusing.

I haven't drawn any conclusions. I didn't tell you to. Guess some simple calculations are evil now.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:42:47 No.11806406 >>11806394 This isn't >>11806360 me btw. Before you start seething

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:44:44 No.11806409

>>11806390
>>Inert gas does things
Wow, it's amazing how much stupidity you can fit into one little sentence. CO2 is not an inert gas, inert gases do things, and the greenhouse effect is not a chemical reaction, so whether CO2 is inert isn't even relevant. Please keep posting like this so we can all laugh at your complete scientific illiteracy.

>Water causes more greenhouse effect than CO2 could ever dream of, maybe we should limit our consumption and tax water now.
How much water vapor is in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature. It's part of a feedback loop, not a radiative forcing like CO2 emissions. You would know this if you knew anything about the topic you're trying to discuss. Sad.

>CO2 is an insulator. Meaning it's inert and literally does nothing.
That's not what insulator means though. What a moron.

>Where are the ice core samples, tree rings, and coral from scientists who gathered it 1000 years ago?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber... This is like saying we can only look at fossils if scientists were around when the dinosaur died. When you take an ice core you are pulling up ice from thousands of years ago. When you look at coral reefs you are looking at millions of years worth of coral. When you look at tree rings you are looking at layers of wood from hundreds of years ago.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:46:17 No.11806412 >>11806402 I didn't say you did, I said your source is propaganda. So far you have done absolutely nothing to argue against that.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:47:44 No.11806414 >>11806185 >>11806239 Climate denialists calling environmentalists short sighted and blind, oh the irony.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:48:06 No.11806416

>>11806394
>This is also why the climate models are worthless and a waste of computing resources.
Which climate models are based on back of the envelope math? They are quite sophisticated.

>The climate scientists are incompetent mathematicians, incompetent statisticians and incompetent coders.
Proof?

I'm noticing a pattern where deniers keep throwing out vague insults but never actually back anything up. Why is that?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:51:03 No.11806417

>>11806412
It isn't propaganda bc you can do the calculations yourself and get the same answer.
Show the math they are using is wrong and i'll believe you.
Notice how this article is not trying to "debunk climate science" it just takes specific issue with the variability of climate sensitivity used for GCMs - it never said any of them are wrong. If you think it said more than that you are making it up.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:52:07 No.11806418 >>11806416 Im not a denier btw. Why does everyone on sci assume the worst in people?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 19:58:19 No.11806430 >>11806412 I'm assuming you just read the title at this point, so do you know what they are classing as small?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:00:28 No.11806436

>>11806409
>CO2 is not an inert gas,
It is considered an inert gas by many professionals, such as the ones who classified it as such to begin with.

>inert gases do things
Lol, not very much though

>and the greenhouse effect is not a chemical reaction,
Correct

>so whether CO2 is inert isn't even relevant
Big time incorrect. So tell me how an inert gas which insulates (insulation is inert despite what some people think) radiated heat from the sun doesn't affect the climate? Good thing we have all that water vapor to condense back into water and carbon for all the life on the planet as part of that feedback loop.

>How much water vapor is in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature
Pressure

>That's not what insulator means though. What a moron.
YES IT IS YOU RETARD. THAT'S WHY IT "INSULATES" IN THE FIRST PLACE. My god where do you get you information?

>This is like saying we can only look at fossils if scientists were around when the dinosaur died.
And you're only reiterating the fact that evolution is still up for debate.

>When you take an ice core you are pulling up ice from thousands of years ago.
But that doesn't qualify as an explanation as to what caused it to be that way 1000 years ago.

>When you look at coral reefs you are looking at millions of years worth of coral. When you look at tree rings you are looking at layers of wood from hundreds of years ago.
Which still is not empirical evidence from those time periods.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:12:45 No.11806462

>>11806417
>It isn't propaganda bc you can do the calculations yourself and get the same answer.
LOL it isn't propaganda because you can repeat the propaganda yourself and get the same propaganda. Brilliant argument.

>Show the math they are using is wrong and i'll believe you.
I already did, his conclusion disagrees with all published research.

>Notice how this article is not trying to "debunk climate science"
Yes, because it can't.

>it just takes specific issue with the variability of climate sensitivity used for GCMs - it never said any of them are wrong.
Please explain how the models can be right that climate sensitivity is probably not near zero while at the same time climate sensitivity is probably close to zero.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:13:50 No.11806467 >>11806418 You deny that climate models are accurate and climate scientists are competent.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:14:52 No.11806469 >>11806430 >I'm assuming you just read the title at this point Your assumption is wrong. Would you like to share any more? >so do you know what they are classing as small? ECS.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:16:11 No.11806471 >>11805236 Weird that no one has bothered to explain this even though it is the dominate feature on the graph.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:16:20 No.11806473 >>11806467 No i dont. I literally provided some calcs and you're trying to make it into something it isn't. As i said quit projecting climate denial onto me.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:17:59 No.11806475 >>11806469 No as in do you have a value for small? You know in the article you read. What is "small". A number.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:22:28 No.11806489 >>11804493 There's many other studies that confirm the hockey stick

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:23:55 No.11806492 >>11805236 Uncertainties. Why does such a simple thing need explanation?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:27:34 No.11806501 >>11806489 Do they use different proxies?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:37:12 No.11806522 >>11806501 Yes, there's the PAGES 2k, Oeans 2K, and Marcott off the top of my head that use a large variety of proxies.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:39:26 No.11806527
File: 171 KB, 480x631, Screenshot_20200616-192618~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11803502
>>11803516
>>11803525
Listen, I'm with you guys- climatology and meteorology are 2 completely different things. Which is, again, why I say it's weird they use the same program.
We can agree that to predict the climate of an entire planet you'd need a supercomputer, right? Same with weather, considering it's a global phenomena that's interconnected, taking billions of calculations (and yeah it's all one big super computer predicting all the weather. Local weathermen just tune into their relevant audience, but like I'm learning japanese and get my Texas weather from their global news station. It's the same forecast.).
Do you know a lot of super computer programers tho? I imagine it's pretty expensive, so if you have already have a program that uses the same concept, why reinvent the wheel that predicts atmospheric and temperature conditions of the future? NOAA's Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputer System is already dedicated to the task, and it's where they do all (most?) the weather and climate modeling. Sure there are other side models to predict land usage/economic effects/population growth/etc, but as far as I can tell going through EPA and NOAA websites they use the same program for predicting weather and climate, which takes into account all these thermometers/barometers/radars/etc we have all over the world for atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures (something not available for paleoclimatology), just with different dates and variables, but the shared goal of predicting future atmosphere and temperature conditions.

Oh yeah, and here's some meteorologists who also don't agree with the official climate narrative:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/20120507/television-meteorologists-climate-change-skeptics-weather-global-warming-john-coleman-james-span-joseph-daleo%3famp

(1/2)

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:47:18 No.11806554

>>11806527
>>11803502
>>11803516
>>11803525
https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/98/2/219/69969/Conflict-about-Climate-Change-at-the-American
Ok they're just articles that mention stats and a few names, but the point remains the same. (I'm not gonna interview these guys for a shitpost.)
Btw a lot of meteorologists quit the AMS over this issue. But you know, we just gotta "educate" the naysayers.

If anyone can prove me wrong, it's someone with access to info here.
https://www2.cisl.ucar.edu/resources/resources-overview
The Computational & Information Systems Lab for Climate Modeling and Weather Forecasting. You'd be able to see what exactly goes on, what variables are used, and I would assume what exact program was used for these graphs we see today. But so far it looks like the same thing.

Oh and here's one more sauce saying it's the same program. 2 min. C'mon, I have you like 30 minutes piecing together this post.
https://youtu.be/toCFqOGVs54

(2/2)

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 20:56:30 No.11806582 >>11806527 >>11806554 Again, you are lumping together paleoclimate reconstructions with climate modelling which are not the same thing. All the data and the python notebooks for this are readily available for anyone to run.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:05:28 No.11806605 >>11803624 It's pretty flat land anon. You're speculating to save your position. I'm giving other anon the point on this convo.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:09:43 No.11806611 >>11806605 I honestly don't understand what the home buying habits of politicians have to do with any of this. There's plenty of evidence to support climate change. It's classic denier sidetracking

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:11:29 No.11806616

>>11806582
Ok well I guess the question isn't really about paleoclimatology is it? We're looking at a hockey stick graph that predicts "future" climate warming.
If anything I did specify that they have extra variables and data for future modeling vs past modeling. Might account for why it's different?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:12:31 No.11806618 >>11806616 >We're looking at a hockey stick graph that predicts "future" climate warming The hockey stick posted is based on paleoclimate data though

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:16:06 No.11806628

>>11806611
It means despite pushing it and funding it and handing out prizes for it, they don't believe it (much less practice it).
If the guy who picks the lottery numbers tells you to bet on 1, 2 and 3, but then you see him bet on 4, 5 and 6, which 3 numbers are you gonna choose?

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:16:46 No.11806630

>>11806527
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/20120507/television-meteorologists-climate-change-skeptics-weather-global-warming-john-coleman-james-span-joseph-daleo%3famp

>television metereologists
I don't give a shit what they're saying.

>We can agree that to predict the climate of an entire planet you'd need a supercomputer, right?
You'd need more than just that.

>Do you know a lot of super computer programers tho? I imagine it's pretty expensive, so if you have already have a program that uses the same concept, why reinvent the wheel that predicts atmospheric and temperature conditions of the future?
No, but I'm a programmer, and understand the principles.

>Do you know a lot of super computer programers tho? I imagine it's pretty expensive, so if you have already have a program that uses the same concept, why reinvent the wheel that predicts atmospheric and temperature conditions of the future?
Because predicting weather over the next week and over the next century are completely different process with completely different methodologies, variables, and forms of statistical analyses.

I'm pretty sure climate researchers are using much more technology than just programs weather forecasters are using.

>>11806554
This video contains no information other than how climate modelling works in general, and doesn't at all indicate meteorologists and climate researchers are using "the same program", or the same models, or looking at the same variables.

>>11806618
What about the red part, which is based on thermometers? For the sake of argument, remove the blue part entirely. How do you explain the trend in red?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:19:36 No.11806636 >>11806630 >How do you explain the trend in red? Because rapid warming is readily observable in all the directly measured temperature records.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:21:18 No.11806641 >>11806628 I don't care about what politicians say

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:21:52 No.11806642

>>11806618
Ok, but people naysay the little upward tick at the end. No one was complaining about the graph until they put on the mask and added the upward tick.
I'm saying not only are the techniques used to predict that upward tick flawed, but are also different techniques than the paleo part of the graph. I reread it and I did specify for future events they include the modern thermo/barometers/etc to predict. Obviously those weren't around in the year 1,000.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:28:45 No.11806656

>>11806642
>techniques used to predict that upward tick
The upward tick is not predicted, it's observed.
>Obviously those weren't around in the year 1,000
There's a clear differentiation in what data comes from paleo proxies (which also independently record anthropocentric warming) and the red instrumental data.
If you don't know the basic definitions of what these graphs represent then don't comment on it.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:30:32 No.11806658

>>11806436
>It is considered an inert gas by many professionals
It doesn't really matter whether you consider it an inert gas or not. The question is what does being inert have to do with the greenhouse effect?

>Lol, not very much though
The greenhouse effect is very much.

>So tell me how an inert gas which insulates (insulation is inert despite what some people think) radiated heat from the sun doesn't affect the climate?
The sun doesn't only radiate heat, it also radiates visible and UV light. These pass through Earth's atmosphere unaffected by CO2. Once they reach the Earth they are emitted as heat, which is blocked by CO2. So the net affect is more energy entering than leaving Earth.

>Pressure
The volume of the atmosphere doesn't change. And this doesn't respond to my point. Water vapor is not a radiative forcing.

>YES IT IS YOU RETARD.
No, an insulator is simply a substance that blocks the flow of heat. This doesn't imply the substance is inert or that it "does nothing." By definition it does something: it insulates.

>And you're only reiterating the fact that evolution is still up for debate.
You're only reiterating that you're a complete crackpot.

>But that doesn't qualify as an explanation as to what caused it to be that way 1000 years ago.
I never said it did. I'm only explaining how retarded you are for asking who gathered 100 year old proxies 1000 years ago.

>Which still is not empirical evidence from those time periods.
It is.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:30:40 No.11806659 File: 214 KB, 1827x969, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11806642

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:30:44 No.11806660

>>11806630
I replied to 3 people anon, to try and avoid this current cat and mouse game of replies. I don't care what you don't care about.

As for the rest of it, I did my work to show you why I think they use the same program. I'm not gonna settle on
>I'm pretty sure they use more technology than just programs weather forecasters are using.
I don't give a shit what you're "pretty sure of". Tell me why and link sources.

I'm literally telling you it's the same program. Just like your phone calendar does days and weeks and also years later, so does the climate/weather forecasters program. It's super easy. You take next week's weather forecast and treat it as fact, then predict another week, until you've predicted a few decades. That was in the video if you payed attention.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:33:52 No.11806671

>>11806473
>No i dont.
>climate models are worthless and a waste of computing resources.
>climate scientists are incompetent mathematicians, incompetent statisticians and incompetent coders.
>the end result is garbage
Why do deniers constantly lie about easily verifiable facts?

>I literally provided some calcs
You literally provided propaganda from a denier's blog while claiming you're not a denier. LOL.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:39:02 No.11806685 >>11806475 >No as in do you have a value for small? 1.3°K per doubling

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:43:05 No.11806697

>>11806628
>It means despite pushing it and funding it and handing out prizes for it, they don't believe it (much less practice it).
It doesn't though. No one believes these properties will be destroyed by rising sea levels tomorrow. It will happen several decades from now. You would at least have to assume that these properties are being kept in the family and passed down to their children when there is 0 evidence to support that.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:43:36 No.11806699

>>11806656
>>11806659
Great. Either way people are gonna naysay it as long as they think it's as reliable as the weatherman, the least trusted guy out there.
Which is the OP question

Please one of you show me what programs are used for the paleo part, how they differ from the modern part, and why the two eras with different data collection sources belong on the same graph.

Is it not fair to say I did my bit of research to back up my claims with reliable sources? Can someone do the same and I'll shut the fuck up and get off this merry go round

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:45:38 No.11806706 >>11806697 Property is only an investment if you can sell it again

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:45:47 No.11806708 >>11806554 >But so far it looks like the same thing It's not. You are linking to a super computer information website. Are you suggesting that just because different programs are run on the same computer they are the same?

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:46:56 No.11806710 >>11806660 The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. You obviously are just making shit up since you can't back it up.

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:48:39 No.11806712 >>11806706 They can easily sell it again as long as retards like you keep denying what's right in front of your eyes.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:48:40 No.11806714

>>11806636
And is that trend itself not concerning?

I'm not qualified to argue about this; I don't know a lot about climate science or research. But the rise in global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution seems pretty obvious to me, and common sense. If the trend continues totally unabated, it seems pretty bad.

>>11806660
The point is I asked about meteorologists, and you replied with an article about TV meteorologists. They're of a much lower caliber.

Of AMS members, 96% think climate change is real: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/03/24/96-of-american-meteorological-society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/#3adffbc16da9.. You said many quit over the disagreement, but I imagine even including the ones who quit, it's probably still over 94%.

>I'm literally telling you it's the same program. Just like your phone calendar does days and weeks and also years later, so does the climate/weather forecasters program. It's super easy. You take next week's weather forecast and treat it as fact, then predict another week, until you've predicted a few decades. That was in the video if you payed attention.
I think we're both probably unqualified to discuss this with any accuracy. It would be nice if an actual post-grad climate researcher could post in this thread. But I think you're completely wrong.

The video just says "models let you predict things", essentially. It says it splits the Earth into grids and tries to extrapolate future temperatures for those areas based on past temperatures in those areas and other variables. This doesn't convey any meaningful information for this. This is how all time- and space-based modeling works for any concept ever.

(1/2)

>>	Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:49:16 No.11806716 blog posters go and stay go.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:50:04 No.11806719

>>11806699
>Please one of you show me what programs are used for the paleo part, how they differ from the modern part
They're not models how many times do I have to say it? They are compilations of proxies and directly observed temperatures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:51:13 No.11806725

>>11806714
>>11806660
The only similarity I imagine there is between short-term weather and long-term climate modeling is those general bits of information.

The models they're using are almost certainly different. The variables they're measuring are almost certainly different, even if some may be shared (like thermometer-recorded temperatures for certain regions). The statistical techniques they're using are different (e.g. analyzing variance over a week and a decade requires different strategies). The software they're using is almost certainly different.

I could dig into examples of software that leading researchers use and compare it to what meteorologists use but this whole conversation is just exhausting. Maybe I'll find an actual climate researcher somewhere who can come into this thread and explain how they work. They'd be able to answer this far, far better than you or me. But I'm like 99% sure you're wrong about your understanding of the similarities in short-term weather forecasting and global climate change modeling.

(2/2)

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:52:23 No.11806729

>>11806699
>Please one of you show me what programs are used for the paleo part, how they differ from the modern part
Can you read a paper? You seem to be whining about your own failure to read. The paleo part is a model made from combining various proxy data sets. The modern part is simply the thermometer record.

>Is it not fair to say I did my bit of research to back up my claims with reliable sources?
None of your sources supported your claim.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 21:52:37 No.11806732

>>11806714
>And is that trend itself not concerning?
>
>I'm not qualified to argue about this; I don't know a lot about climate science or research. But the rise in global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution seems pretty obvious to me, and common sense. If the trend continues totally unabated, it seems pretty bad.
Yes, that's the whole point of reducing CO2 emissions

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 23:20:15 No.11806920
File: 144 KB, 1173x1151, 1582831375413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11806658
>It doesn't really matter whether you consider it an inert gas or not. The question is what does being inert have to do with the greenhouse effect?

It is what is trapping the heat. It doesn't do anything and because of it's inertness the heat doesn't penetrate it. That is what an insulator does. Same with cold things. That's why Venus has the coldest poles in the system.

>The greenhouse effect is very much.

Which is ultimately caused by heat and light.

>The sun doesn't only radiate heat, it also radiates visible and UV light.
I'm well aware the sun shines

>Once they reach the Earth they are emitted as heat, which is blocked by CO2. So the net affect is more energy entering than leaving Earth.
So it's not irrelevant than

>The volume of the atmosphere doesn't change.
Volume and size isn't what causes pressure.
>And this doesn't respond to my point
It does because water condensing and evaporating is based on pressure. Not temperature.

>No, an insulator is simply a substance that blocks the flow of heat.
You're wrong. It is "a substance", or a "lack of substance", the point is that it does nothing, leaving whatever is trying to change it to go on its merry way. It "blocks" but it does so by doing nothing, it doesn't combat it or negate it in any way, other than using whatever it's blocking against itself such as in the case of soundproofing. It is just "there in the way". That's why the best insulator is literally nothing. When something comes across nothing, it leaves unchanged.

>This doesn't imply the substance is inert or that it "does nothing."
So why does a vacuumed sealed thermos insulate the best? What is the substance between the steel walls of the container?

>By definition it does something: it insulates.
To prevent. To protect. Specifically what is already there and leave it unchanged. It does nothing. The best insulator will do nothing anyway.

Anonymous Tue, Jun 16, 2020 23:55:26 No.11806978
File: 241 KB, 1920x1080, ice core bullshit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11802101
Because we know there was a much steeper increase in temperature in the 1100-1300 then what shows by reading historical records of agricultural areas:

"From the ninth through the thirteenth centuries, farming spread into northern portions of Russia. In the Far East, Chinese and Japanese farmers migrated north into Manchuria, the Amur Valley and northern Japan."

There is even major population growth associated with the medieval warming period.

"The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England, where growing grapes is now not feasible, and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 AD to 1300 AD., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0–1.4°C. Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1°C warmer than present"

Meanwhile climate scientists who spam this crap assume that CO2 levels on ice cores necessarily correlate with temperature. Another method they use to estimate past temperature is through dendroclimatology, which is measuring tree rings, and carries a shitload of limitation like confounding factors, hard collection of medieval trees measurements, diverging problems with actual trees today and so on.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:04:35 No.11807007

>>11806920
>It is what is trapping the heat. It doesn't do anything
Are you mentally ill? You immediately contradicted yourself.

>because of it's inertness the heat doesn't penetrate it.
What does that even mean?

>Which is ultimately caused by heat and light.
How?

>I'm well aware the sun shines
Then why are you talking about heat from the sun?

>So it's not irrelevant than
What is "it?"

>Volume and size isn't what causes pressure.
Air pressure is determined by air density. Air density is determined by volume and temperature.

>It does because water condensing and evaporating is based on pressure. Not temperature.
Pressure is based on temperature. And you again failed to respond to my point. Water vapor is not a radiative forcing.

>It is "a substance", or a "lack of substance", the point is that it does nothing, leaving whatever is trying to change it to go on its merry way.
Gibberish. An insulator insulates. Get over it.

>So why does a vacuumed sealed thermos insulate the best?
Because it doesn't allow heat to conduct. The greenhouse effect is not blocking conduction, it's redirecting outgoing radiation. You completely fail at basic logic.

>Specifically what is already there and leave it unchanged.
CO2 doesn't leave heat unchanged, it re-radiates heat in all directions.

Your "argument" is nonsensical semantic games with no substance.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:12:47 No.11807028

>>11806978
>Because we know there was a much steeper increase in temperature in the 1100-1300 then what shows by reading historical records of agricultural areas
Regional anecdotes don't tell us you know something.

>Meanwhile climate scientists who spam this crap assume that CO2 levels on ice cores necessarily correlate with temperature.
There is no such assumption, it's an empirical observation. Temperature from ice cores are determined from oxygen and hydrogen isotopes produced during fractionation. Try not to lie, it just makes you look like a fool.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:28:45 No.11807064

>>11802101
Weird, just looking at it. Why wouldnt I expect that blue would just stay the same or go down like it did a few hundred years ago.

Also, literally assuming that taking tree rings, corals and ice cores to figure out a temperature delta of less than 0.5. do these "scientists" even know what theyre doing? The black lines I assume to be 2 sigma variations looks like the data sets become less volatile over time? What do these people hope to achieve by making such conclusive statemets from noisy data (and matching correlated data that when normalised for volatility propbably dont even remotely match.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:39:05 No.11807080

>>11803035
>Your argument doesn't make any sense and the climate shown in the graph is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

The problem is the noise (volatility), it looks like you can't even bother using data pre 1500 due t o how terribly noisy it is. Even looking at it, the delta's are so tiny the errors post 1500 overlap many of the data points of the past 100 years. It only started piling up the moment the blue (correlated to temp) data stops being measured. Probably due to
1) how it takes hundreds-thousands of years for ice cores to form to the right density.
2) dozens of years for tree rings to dehydrate properly to get an accurate measurement for reliable correlated data (which they may or may not have normalized for). How would they even properly normalize for other soil conditions that affect the ring growth (I doubt the legitemacy of these errors)
3) They have to date old coral, then they have to estimate old ass temps.
4) Historical records (lol what?)

What do these scientists have to prove with this?

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:48:51 No.11807109
File: 170 KB, 1920x560, All_palaeotemps.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11807028
Yeah Im sure major regional shifts from Europe to Japan count as anecdotes and not evidence. The colonization of Greenland... The increase in agricultural output, grapes being farmed in northern England Kek

Look at the inaccuracy of relying on measuring δ18O isotopic ratio in ice cores for a few degrees yourself. Why do you think I'm lying?

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 00:56:40 No.11807124
File: 18 KB, 592x570, greta pwnd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11807109
Historical CO2 levels demonstrate that an increase in CO2 far above the current levels would cause no negative impact for life on Earth. Primates and all mammals and the rest of life thrived during past epochs of CO2 levels triple the current number. Its almost as if life on Earth has evolved in an environment with variable atmospheric gas levels and has adapted to survive it.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 01:16:29 No.11807170 >>11807124 Boomer tier image.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 07:34:22 No.11807859

>>11807064
>Why wouldnt I expect that blue would just stay the same or go down like it did a few hundred years ago.
You don't have to expect anything. You can look at what factors effect the climate.

>Also, literally assuming that taking tree rings, corals and ice cores to figure out a temperature delta of less than 0.5.
Where is this assumed? Have you read the paper?

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 07:49:00 No.11807889

>>11807080
>The problem is the noise (volatility), it looks like you can't even bother using data pre 1500 due t o how terribly noisy it is.
What specifically is the problem?

>Even looking at it, the delta's are so tiny the errors post 1500 overlap many of the data points of the past 100 years.
And?

>It only started piling up the moment the blue (correlated to temp) data stops being measured.
What is "piling up?"

>1) how it takes hundreds-thousands of years for ice cores to form to the right density.
That's why the ice core data ends 150 years ago. What is your point?

You're being very vague.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 07:54:28 No.11807899

>>11807109
>Yeah Im sure major regional shifts from Europe to Japan count as anecdotes and not evidence.
Evidence of what? You posted a graph showing the minor global affects of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. So I'm not sure what you're arguing. That anecdotes contradict the data? They aren't comparable.

>Look at the inaccuracy of relying on measuring δ18O isotopic ratio in ice cores for a few degrees yourself.
Please explain how inaccuracy of the proxy is large enough to dispute the correlation between temperature and CO2.

>Why do you think I'm lying?
Because you claimed scientists made an assumption they didn't make.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:02:36 No.11807914

>>11807124
>Primates and all mammals and the rest of life thrived during past epochs of CO2 levels triple the current number.
This is very misleading. The issue is not simply the amount of CO2 but the rate of change. Mammals and their ecosystems had millions of years to adapt to such temperatures, not a few hundred years.

>Its almost as if life on Earth has evolved in an environment with variable atmospheric gas levels and has adapted to survive it.
Mass extinction due to rapid changes in environment is indeed a form of evolution.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:04:33 No.11807923 >>11806671 Didnt say that you're confusing me with someone else. You're just projecting bc idk you dont like a couple of calculations?

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:11:18 No.11807934 >>11807923 How exactly can you be someone else when you replied in the thread as if you were that person? >>11806394 >>11806416 >>11806418 >>11806467 >>11806473 >>11806671 >>11807923

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:17:06 No.11807944 >>11807934 The first one is not me

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:18:54 No.11807947

>>11807934
I never said models are a waste of resources. I have no problem with the climate consensus which places warming between 2 and 4.5 degrees.

All I said was the value depends on the climate sensitivity, as we can see, CO2 does not have a dramatic impact on its own (The first 2 calcs in the source).

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:21:08 No.11807951 >>11807944 Then why did you reply to >>11806416

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:23:07 No.11807956 >>11807951 Replying to the part where you said "deniers keep throwing vague insults". Thought you were lumping me into that.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 08:24:09 No.11807958 >>11807951 Also i sent this>>11806406

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 09:12:48 No.11808046 >>11802101 Zoom out

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 09:17:46 No.11808063 >>11802101 look a couple of 100k years aback more

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 09:26:59 No.11808083 File: 127 KB, 1500x437, earths temp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11808063

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 10:32:11 No.11808230 >>11807956 I have no way to know who you are if you respond to someone else's posts without identifying yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 11:24:20 No.11808351 >>11808083 This shows current warming is an order of magnitude faster than any in the last 1 million years.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 11:37:17 No.11808393 >>11808230 see>>11807958

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 11:39:34 No.11808399 >>11808351 No it doesnt

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 11:42:24 No.11808407 >>11808351 Unless you are suggesting the proxies used to establish temperature over the last 1million years have a resolution of 50-100 years?

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 17:24:05 No.11809367 >>11802707 Kek

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 17:27:45 No.11809390 >>11802328 delet

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 17:36:36 No.11809411
File: 121 KB, 1080x985, EavSejNU0AANuAD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

why is the increasing temperature a bad thing? Most of Russia and Canada is a frozen tundra

shouldn't we be more concerned about increasing dryness in a given region?

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 17:40:38 No.11809421 >>11809411 Because most people don't live on tundra and because increase in heat can also cause increase of desertification.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 20:07:09 No.11809801

>>11809411
>why is the increasing temperature a bad thing?

If it's good news then you get no headlines and funding. That's why we're in an apocalyptic crisis catastrophe where headlines grow exponentially worse while everyday life is improving day for day.

By 2100 climate change will be 1 year away from setting fire to the air and turning the seas into boiling blood.
Meanwhile agricultural yield will be up 5x and poverty and disease will be gone and the average temperature will be unmeasurably different

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 20:15:06 No.11809825 >>11809411 tundras are good

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 20:33:22 No.11809870

>>11807859
>What specifically is the problem?
When data is noisy, to the point of overlapping errors (grey), you justify any useful conclusions with it. The conclusion could be right, but the data does not support it whatsoever.
>And?
If the temperature difference is so tiny (say 0.5) and the error is 0.5, it means that the actual difference is 0.5 ± 0.5. So in laymans terms the results is between 0 to 1 normally distributed. It means that the data comparing pre 1500 and post 1500 is not conclusive by any measure if the difference is below 0.5.
>What is "piling up?"
The delta started massively spiking
>That's why the ice core data ends 150 years ago. What is your point?
The data normalisation for those ice core datas probably arent done all that accurately since we dont have thermometer readings past 150 years ago to accurately compare it.

I'm vague because my reasoning relies on the statistical issues of the data. Climate change may be a big issue, but the graph sure as hell doesnt support it. Climate science in general is more like liberal arts that likes to use graphs than an actual science (and that includes staff and students).

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 20:34:25 No.11809876 >>11807889 wrong one >>11809870

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 23:12:39 No.11810182 File: 45 KB, 448x480, proxy_span_resolution_graph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11808407 They do.

>>	Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 23:13:41 No.11810184 >>11808399 It does.

Anonymous Wed, Jun 17, 2020 23:24:04 No.11810192

>>11809870
>When data is noisy, to the point of overlapping errors (grey), you justify any useful conclusions with it.
Which conclusion do you think are not supported by the data?

>It means that the data comparing pre 1500 and post 1500 is not conclusive by any measure if the difference is below 0.5.
This overlap only exists for the early part of the warming. You're conflating early warming with all warming. You're also ignoring more modern reconstructions that have less error.

>The delta started massively spiking
Yes, that's the point.

>The data normalisation for those ice core datas probably arent done all that accurately since we dont have thermometer readings past 150 years ago to accurately compare it.
The normalization is not done with only ice cores and thermometer readings.

>I'm vague because my reasoning relies on the statistical issues of the data.
Statistical issues aren't vague.

>Climate change may be a big issue, but the graph sure as hell doesnt support it.
You're delusional.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 00:48:41 No.11810332

>>11810192
>Which conclusion do you think are not supported by the data?
No conclusion, but "inconclusive" is supported by THIS data.
>This overlap only exists for the early part of the warming. You're conflating early warming with all warming. You're also ignoring more modern reconstructions that have less error.
Slightly altering the methodologies to lower the error on paper is not an improvement. When the method itself is error prone, you don't try to improve on it, you discard it and try something else.
>Yes, that's the point.
???
> The normalization is not done with only ice cores and thermometer readings.
Your greentext was about my mention on ice cores though???
> Statistical issues aren't vague.
Assume that vague=general when I said it before this post.
>You're delusional.
Ok, won't help your hockey stick and its inbred cousins.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 01:21:12 No.11810364 File: 95 KB, 657x1024, 1592455629276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11802101 >>11802328 >>11802390 >>11802393 >>11802707 >>11802729 It's time to vote lads https://www.strawpoll.me/20375303

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 01:22:14 No.11810366 >>11810364 >https://www.strawpoll.me/20375303

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 01:54:29 No.11810404 >>11806390 >CO2 is an insulator. Meaning it's inert and literally does nothing. lol wut

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 01:58:10 No.11810410 >>11810332 >Slightly altering the methodologies to lower the error on paper is not an improvement. Not that guy but yes it is If you alter your methodology and get a more precise result then it is an improvement

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 02:05:37 No.11810416 >>11806920 Your ignorance is unfathomable, please fucking kill yourself, you are beyond hope.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 02:35:05 No.11810444 >>11810364 A vote for yes means you want climate change to happen right? Hit that big ol reset button.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 03:32:58 No.11810505 >>11803035 Yeah. And you act like the climate is stable enough to predict long term while being unstable enough that a perterbation in a trace gas will cook us ass in 40 years.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 03:59:58 No.11810559

>>11810410
>Not that guy but yes it is If you alter your methodology and get a more precise result then it is an improvement
If the method is shit, getting a lower error from the method does not actually improve anything other than you get clearer shit

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:00:09 No.11810999

>>11810332
>No conclusion, but "inconclusive" is supported by THIS data.
If the data is "inconclusive" then it must not support conclusions drawn from it. You're not making any sense. Which conclusions have climatologists drawn from this study that are not supported?

>Slightly altering the methodologies to lower the error on paper is not an improvement.
How is lowering the error not an improvement? And how are different statistical methods and data "slightly altering the methodology?" You're not making any sense.

>When the method itself is error prone, you don't try to improve on it, you discard it and try something else.
What does it mean to be "error prone?" All empirical methods have errors. Improving your method and replicating a result is standard science. You're just making up vague and arbitrary standards in order to deny evidence. Your desperation is showing.

>???
Temperature spiked after a long period of slow cooling.

>Your greentext was about my mention on ice cores though???
Yes, the data normalization was not done with only ice cores and the thermometer record. The covariance between all the proxies were used. Explain why you think the normalization with ice cores is inaccurate.

>Assume that vague=general when I said it before this post.
You're being vague, not general. If you were being general, your criticisms would still apply to the study instead of being vague nonsense.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:07:35 No.11811020

>>11810559
>If the method is shit
Good luck showing all these different methods are shit. Until then you're talking out of your ass.

>getting a lower error from the method does not actually improve anything
It does by definition. By your argument, a method being "shit" has nothing to do with how much error it has. Apparently being "shit" doesn't mean inaccurate, it means "a method that draws a conclusion I don't like."

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:16:53 No.11811056

>>11810505
>And you act like the climate is stable enough to predict long term
We've observed it to be.

>while being unstable enough that a perterbation in a trace gas will cook us ass in 40 years.
LOL, that's a strawman. With regards to predicting a deterministic system, stability simply means that the effect of a small perturbation will not blow up, i.e a runaway effect. Warming due to greenhouse gas emissions is the opposite of a runaway effect. It takes more and more emissions to produce the same amount of warming. But we are emmitting more and more greenhouse gases. It's not the warming that's unstable, it's our emissions.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:30:32 No.11811096

>>11810999
>>11811020
I'm getting bored of this, this will be my last reply.
>Which conclusions have climatologists drawn from this study that are not supported?
That the spike is AS significant as climatologists make it out to be.
>"slightly altering the methodology?"
They are fundementally only slightly altering it as they are still measuring the same thing. It's the difference between being precise and accurate. Using new fangled methods on the same object will make your results look more precise, but not nessesarily more accurate.
>Your desperation is showing.
If that what keeps you asleep at night, im more worried about how all these techniques will affect other real branches of science. I literally read papers that use complex modeling 2 years ago using computer simulations only to have crystalographic data a year after that totally btfoing the conclusions of the first paper. The only difference is you can't do what you can in biochemistry with climate science. It's literally astrology, you look at noise, see patterns and "feel" the conclusions.
>long period
right...
>Explain why you think the normalization with ice cores is inaccurate.
Lets just assume its accurate. It's still stiching data, so individual points might be accurate, but drawing from it won't be very conclusive.
>nonsense
Literally just regurgitating some website's argument, well I guess it doesnt matter. Capitalism will disregard non-profitable issues for us.
>Good luck showing shit.
Well, according to the auditors of this paper, there were statistical issues that apparently doesnt cause the conlusions to change. Climatology is not my field, but I do know statistics enough to know that data does not support their conclusion to a good enough extent.
>It does by definition.
I think i get it now, you're just being a pedantic ass that really cares about what I say rather than what you know I mean. Good luck proving people wrong on these boards anon, hope it'll give you a bit of hope in life.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:45:42 No.11811128

>>11810182
>They do
They don't. Show me a peer reviewed article about ocean sediment or rock core 1 million years ago with centennial resolution. Show 1 (ONE).

You literally cant

I'll save you some time and let you know the oldest continuous ice core we have is 800ky, so ice core is out of question.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 08:46:57 No.11811133 >>11811056 Doubling CO2 conc (expected to occur by 2100) causes an irradiation increase of 0.3%. >>11805954 The predicted warming is not due to CO2 output but the value for climate sensitivity.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 09:53:15 No.11811308

>>11809421
It would cease to be tundra if the temperature was higher. Also desertification is mainly due to local weather patterns. A higher global temperature might indeed cause some area to become desert but it also might cause another area to get higher rainfall than before, causing de-desertification.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 09:53:18 No.11811309 >>11811128 >show me the proxies with centennial resolution over the last million years >but the proxy with centennial resolution over the last million years is out of the question. Retard.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 10:10:57 No.11811365

>The average global temperature will increase by less than it does due to daily fluctuations every single day
>We're all going to die!

It will drown in measurement noise and we won't even be able to tell if it happened or not, that is, it cannot be falsified, no null hypothesis.

Why should I not just go to the local priest or imam if I want to hear about faith?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 10:20:11 No.11811386 >>11811133 >Doubling CO2 conc (expected to occur by 2100) causes an irradiation increase of 0.3%. And?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 10:36:11 No.11811415 >>11811386 >And? Exactly, and then what? Nothing at all will happen

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 11:32:37 No.11811522

>>11811096
>I'm getting bored of this, this will be my last reply.
You're getting destroyed.

>That the spike is AS significant as climatologists make it out to be.
How is it less significant?

>They are fundementally only slightly altering it as they are still measuring the same thing.
Doesn't follow. Measuring the same thing doesn't mean your method of measuring is the same. You're incapable of arguing against the numerous methodologies so you are attempting to conflate them. But such sophistry won't help you since you can't even explain how the first one is flawed.

>Using new fangled methods on the same object will make your results look more precise, but not nessesarily more accurate.
The newer methods are more accurate. Basically you're arguing replication is useless.

>I literally read papers that use complex modeling 2 years ago using computer simulations only to have crystalographic data a year after that totally btfoing the conclusions of the first paper.
Then it should be easy to falsify the hockey stick if it's as inaccurate as you claim.

>It's literally astrology, you look at noise, see patterns and "feel" the conclusions.
A long term trend isn't noise.

>It's still stiching data, so individual points might be accurate, but drawing from it won't be very conclusive.
Why?

>Climatology is not my field, but I do know statistics enough to know that data does not support their conclusion to a good enough extent.
If you actually knew statistics well enough you would be able to explain how it doesn't support the conclusions instead of such vague criticisms. The only thing you've said in this thread is that it's inaccurate, shit, meaningless, etc. The same adjectives could easily describe your substanceless argument.

>I think i get it now, you're just being a pedantic ass that really cares about what I say rather than what you know I mean.
Pointing out that decreasing error is an improvement is not pedantic. You're just in denial.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 11:35:10 No.11811525 >>11811415 About 3 degrees of global warming will happen. You can call it .0003 mega degrees or 0.3% of the temperature difference from absolute zero but that doesn't change anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 14:04:40 No.11811957 File: 80 KB, 475x433, 2020-06-18_20-03.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Have you heard the news? Its no longer until 2030 or 2050 when climate change kills us. It's six months now

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 14:18:40 No.11812008 >>11811525 >but that doesn't change anything. Neither do a supposed 3 degrees warmer avg temperature, it's less than the noise from everyday weather so it's not actually measurable.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 15:22:22 No.11812159

>>11811309
Show me a continuous ice core record older than 800ky.

The EDC core, the 800ky one at the bottom the resolution is about 2ky because it is squished. You pretend to know things but know nothing about anything. Do you seriously think ice cores have the same temporal resolution from top to bottom?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 17:40:42 No.11812594 File: 199 KB, 521x437, figure-spm-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11812008 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 17:58:32 No.11812640 >>11809421 >increase in heat can also cause increase of desertification Heat by itself would, but CO2 increase is correlated with more green areas and humidity. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:12:40 No.11812664

>>11812159
>Show me a continuous ice core record older than 800ky.
Why?

>The EDC core, the 800ky one at the bottom the resolution is about 2ky because it is squished.
There are more proxy records than ice cores. All reconstructions of the last million years have shown the fastest warming before the modern record is interglacial warming, at most 1.5 degrees per millenium. The current warming rate is about 2 degrees per century.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:17:19 No.11812669

>>11811386
Literally read the second sentence in my post you retard. Any projection of future temperature is entirely reliant on the form/value of climate sensitivity. We do not know if climate sensitivity is constant, non linear, linear? We might have reasonable estimates for it, we might not.

Climate models are nice, and they give reasonable results (most of them, i think the globe will warm by about 2.5 C, by 2100 and it won't be a catastrophe ), but at the end of the day they are programs where you input past data and future projections come out. You could only test the validity of the models with about a century of data, or more, if you want to project a century, or more, into the future. Extrapolation is bad.

Fitting to past data does not work as all major models overfit the data.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:17:52 No.11812673

>>11811365
>>The average global temperature will increase by less than it does due to daily fluctuations every single day
What does the change in the average have to do with the variance?

>>We're all going to die!
Who are you quoting?

>It will drown in measurement noise
If it is drowned in noise how is there a trend in the first place?

>and we won't even be able to tell if it happened or not
It's already happening. Are you blind?

>that is, it cannot be falsified, no null hypothesis.
LOL, all that has to occur is the trend stops being positive. Any empirical measurement is falsifiable.

You're severely retarded, stop posting on the science board.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:19:44 No.11812677 >>11811957 >time to avert X = time before X occurs Learn how to read.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:26:37 No.11812688

>>11812008
>it's less than the noise from everyday weather so it's not actually measurable.
This is the dumbest post in this thread. By your argument there's no difference between an ice age and now since the temperature difference is only a few degrees.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:38:42 No.11812709

>>11812669
>Literally read the second sentence in my post you retard.
I did, it doesn't explain why pointing out the direct radiative forcing increase is a 0.3% increase is relevant. It's not actually saying anything, it's just a number without context. I guess your intention is to show that this number is "small" but without referencing the actual effect of this change it's pure sophistry. Saying that the warming effect is due to climate sensitivity and not CO2 output is equally nonsensical and misleading. Climate feedbacks don't start by themselves, they require a cause, such as a change in radiative forcing.

>Climate models are nice, and they give reasonable results (most of them, i think the globe will warm by about 2.5 C, by 2100 and it won't be a catastrophe )
It depends what you mean by "catastrophe." More important that what you label it as are it's actual effects.

>You could only test the validity of the models with about a century of data, or more, if you want to project a century, or more, into the future.
You can test it before then, and it's success increases our confidence in the longer term projection. You can also hindcast as far back as you want.

>Extrapolation is bad.
Extrapolation is how science works. Not liking the conclusions doesn't make the science "bad."

>Fitting to past data does not work as all major models overfit the data.
Source?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:49:08 No.11812735

>>11812688
>>11812677
>>11812673
>>11812664
>>11812640
>>11811522
>>11811525
>>11811386
>>11811365
>>11811056
>>11811020
>>11810999
>>11810192
>>11807914
>>11807899
>>11807889
>>11807859
>>11807007
>>11806920
Is this what its like talking to brick walls? Literally no argument is being conceeded with both sides occassionally making bad arguments. How can a discussion take place without good faith that the other side wants to understand eachother rather than win.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:49:29 No.11812737 >>11812594 I'm still right, your colored boxes in a .jpg means nothing. We're discussing fundamental science here.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:50:59 No.11812738 >>11812735 Welcome to /sci/, everyone's a wall, but they have different bonds! We just witnessed an exciting argument between an English bond wall and a Flemish bond.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:54:00 No.11812745 >>11812159 >Show me a continuous ice core record older than 800ky. Why?>>11812737 >I'm still right, your colored boxes in a .jpg means nothing. Then your posts mean less than nothing. You're not discussing science, you're ignoring it.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:55:51 No.11812754

>>11812735
The pro-AGW team was never interested in discussion, have repeatedly been making bad predictions and forecasts, repeatedly been caught doing back office politics and simply lying.

Any factual argument is met with shouts of DENIER! and ad hominem.

I used to construct careful arguments with cited data and attempt to start civil disccusion, the replies I got were always the same as in this thread. That didn't get trough their thick skulls so I've resorter to condense my arguments to their level.

The pro-agw crowd is essentially environmentalist activists. Think of antifa but dressed in green to symbolize the nature they pretend to care about and red to symbolize the deaths they wish to cause with misguided policy

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:56:01 No.11812755 >>11812735 I am trying to understand their arguments. That's why I ask them questions. Unfortunately it seems they don't actually have an argument to explain. They just make vague insults because they don't like the conclusions of climate science.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:57:03 No.11812760 >>11812754

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 18:57:55 No.11812762 >>11812745 >You're not discussing science There's no science to discuss in this thread, climate science is politics. The science part of the name is just another lie in the game you play.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:02:56 No.11812775

>>11812754
>The pro-AGW team was never interested in discussion
So why are we discussing it?

>have repeatedly been making bad predictions and forecasts, repeatedly been caught doing back office politics and simply lying.
Like what?

>Any factual argument is met with shouts of DENIER! and ad hominem.
Show one.

>I used to construct careful arguments with cited data and attempt to start civil disccusion, the replies I got were always the same as in this thread.
Most of the replies in this thread have been asking you to explain your argument in more detail. I'd love to see the archives of those discussions since you refuse to do so here.

>The pro-agw crowd is essentially environmentalist activists.
Just keep ignoring the massive amount of scientific evidence proving AGW. I'm sure it will go away eventually.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:03:58 No.11812778 >>11812762 >There's no science to discuss in this thread, climate science is politics. And evolution is religion. Yawn.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:07:14 No.11812788 >>11812735 Hes been at it for weeks, just ignore him. He just says things even after being told hes wrong.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:15:33 No.11812814

>>11812775
>So why are we discussing it?
We're discussing it, where? All I see is hysterical theatrics of people demanding green money handouts in the name of the apocalypse.

>Like what?
Like all of their predictions

>The rest
You're asking for single data points just to handwave them away with an ad hominem and feel smug.

If you actually cared about the arguments you could at any time go ahead and google them, I'm not your mom or servant.

After educating yourself on why the climate crisis is a bad news media meme and not science you can come back and try to piece the ashes together into a coherent pro-argument

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:16:23 No.11812819 >>11802704 It's actually quite inconvenient.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:19:12 No.11812834

>>11812814
>We're discussing it, where?
In this thread.

>All I see is hysterical theatrics
You're misrepresentation is itself hysterical theatrics.

>Like all of their predictions
So you can't even show one?

>You're asking for single data points just to handwave them away with an ad hominem and feel smug.
No, I'm asking for you to make a substantive argument.

>If you actually cared about the arguments you could at any time go ahead and google them
So I'm supposed to come up with arguments for your position? And you accuse me of not wanting to have a discussion? LOL.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:22:13 No.11812845

>>11802101
I have read the thread and I‘m not impressed. I will give a hint why the study, that wasn’t posted, which is really disappointing, is useless. Small hint different measuring methods for different times. Another hint since when do we monitor temperature. Since the thread has made me lose almost all hope in this place, I will give two more. Dendroclimatology and glacioclimatology.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:25:20 No.11812849 >>11812845 You need to be even more vague, that way there will be no possibility of anyone taking your post seriously and arguing against it.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:26:53 No.11812853

>>11812834
>So I'm supposed to come up with arguments for your position?
Nice strawman bro.

You're supposed to educate yourself on the skeptic viewpoint on your own, not expect me to spoonfeed you.

Present me an argument for why global warming is of any concern and I might entertain your request

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:33:22 No.11812873 >>11812849 To anybody with some knowledge it’s completely obvious. That’s the only kind of people I‘m willing to argue with.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:34:35 No.11812879

>>11812853
>Nice strawman bro.
That's literally what you asked me to do. I could ask you to read climatology papers until you stop making stupid claims about climatology but I already know you don't read research.

>You're supposed to educate yourself on the skeptic viewpoint on your own
I have. I know much better arguments than what you've given.

>not expect me to spoonfeed you.
I expect you to make an argument. Apparently that's too hard for you.

>Present me an argument for why global warming is of any concern and I might entertain your request
See >>11812594

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:36:55 No.11812890 File: 50 KB, 645x729, 1515194851321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11812873 >My arguments aren't vague bullshit, everyone is just too dumb to understand them Nice delusion.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:38:55 No.11812893

>>11812879
Why don’t you chose the paper that according to you proves climate change the best and we argue about the data and the methodology. Because currently you and others haven’t provided anything of substance and I fell this all needs a more scientific grounding.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:39:22 No.11812894

Guys, shut up, everyone shut the fuck up. Dear god, the science behind Global Warming is so simple you can teach it to high school children in the span of an hour.

Everyone in the denialist camp keeps attacking the proxy data and temperature record, this is laughable because you don’t need to rely on these records to prove AGW.
Everyone in the pro camp keeps answering with temperature records and proxy data. While this is what the deniers are asking for, it does nothing to prove what they’re trying to prove.

Here’s the science, it’s simple, straightforward, and incontrovertible. It completely destroys all the arguments the deniers can make and leaves them with no answers. Just post this and move on. If they don’t understand this just ignore them and move on, they’re too stupid to be saved.

https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:45:07 No.11812917

>>11812873
I assume you refer to the atrociously bad practice of selectively bolting different proxy measurements together to get a graph that agree with your opinions in order to net you fame and fortune.

I see absolutely nothing left to argue about? It's a practice with no integrity at all and the next step for anyone who uses such an approach and gets away with it is to either: Make up the data ex nihilo, or use black box data processing practices that ignores the input data and just outputs the desired sequences.
Which is exactly how history played out.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:46:03 No.11812920 >>11812894 >School children will understand That’s your current understanding. The „link“ has no data they collected. Nor is it a meta analysis. I feel embarrassed by just having that link here.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:48:51 No.11812934 >>11812879 >See >>11812594 >colored boxes with unreadably small font >No sources listed A useless infographic that you yourself don't even understand and can't explain in your own words. Also not peer reviewed, trash discarded.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:50:04 No.11812947

>>11812894
I don't think anyone has refuted agw. 2 things how much will the planet warm (The scientist predict 2-4.5 degrees) This is entirely dependent on the climate sensitivity - for which we do not have a conclusive mathematical form. And will the warming cause a natural catastrophe (unknown). If both these are the case, what the hell is actually going to be done about it in the real world?

see >>11812669

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:54:10 No.11812963

>>11812917
I argue you can’t predict climate it’s a chaotic complex system. I propose this study as it’s the original as basis for serious discussion http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf.. We should make a new thread. Other proposals for a paper we should discuss?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:56:29 No.11812976 >>11812947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Measures_of_climate_sensitivity

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 19:58:44 No.11812991
File: 10 KB, 400x350, Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11812894
It's even simpler to prove.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

>[PIC]
>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:00:47 No.11812998 >>11812976 First source in the article was so bad they had to retract it. Pretty funny. And yet they say Wikipedia is solid on scientific matters.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:03:17 No.11813008 >>11812991 >The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket That’s the stuff you read to children anything serious?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:04:37 No.11813013

>>11812920
So you're saying that all physics and chemistry learned over the last 100 years is wrong because the link I shared doesn't show where they got the data? Are you serious? This is just high school physics and chemistry friend and you'd have to throw it all out to deny AGW

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:04:56 No.11813015 >>11812998 I didn't say it was a perfect source. But climate sensitivity is what this issue is about. Not gas concentrations.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:05:10 No.11813017

>>11812894
>Everyone in the denialist camp keeps attacking the proxy data and temperature record

They have some issues, if that was all it wouldn't be so bad. The problem is in the modeling department.
The models that describe future climate are not peer-reviewed, black-boxes, and trash.
The models that describe second order effects like food security, economical effect, water distribution, desertification, forest cover, and so on ad nauseam are equally bad.

So we have a questionable reconstruction and record. We use that to verify and hindcast models. Then we take the shitty model results and feed it into more shitty models.

And out comes the truth? Really? If you eat my shit straight out of my asshole, do you expect to shit out a 7 course meal on expensive china? No then we agree that contemporary climate science is no more valuable than twice digested fecal matter.

The rest of your post is just you admitting you have no further arguments, posting a powerpoint slide? Really? Not peer reviewed, no editorial review, nothing, just the visual aid part some teacher made in 10 minutes for an introductory course that no one is actually arguing over.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:06:19 No.11813019 >>11813008 https://scied.ucar.edu/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:07:25 No.11813023 >>11813017 >I don't understand the science shown and can't refute any of the data >I know! >But muh models man!

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:09:58 No.11813033 >>11813015 I want this board to be something more than reddit. So I take my scientific education here and I hope others will too. I guess the paper you suggest is https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf correct?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:10:49 No.11813035

>>11813008
1. That's not the relevant part, the relevant part is what I've quoted which you have no answer for.

2. The technical language is brought down to a child level so even the dumbest mouthbreathing AGW denialist (You) can understand.

CO2 concentrations have nearly doubled during the past 200 years, we understand the mechanism by which CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and the temperature measurements match those expected as per the science. It's that simple.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:14:05 No.11813046

>>11813019
I did that in grade ten. And our teacher even than explained to us why it isn’t really correct. I had enough lectures on climatology, metrology, advanced statistics, experiment design and dynamic systems to easily understand the papers, hence my proposal to discuss one.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:14:21 No.11813048

>>11813023
>I don't understand the science shown and can't refute any of the data
I can see that, your reply to my argument is the saddest post in this thread so far and that's not because a shortage of sad pots here.

Come back if you ever finish university, maybe you actually have something to contribute by then.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:18:10 No.11813062

>>11812893
>Why don’t you chose the paper that according to you proves climate change the best
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf

>Because currently you and others haven’t provided anything of substance
I have, you're just not paying attention:

>>11804394
>>11806142
>>11806203
>>11812594

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:20:43 No.11813066

>>11812917
>I assume you refer to the atrociously bad practice of selectively bolting different proxy measurements together to get a graph that agree with your opinions
How are proxies bolted together to reach a specific conclusion?

>I see absolutely nothing left to argue about?
How about whether your claim it true?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:23:35 No.11813072

>>11812991
>he final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy
How fancy. To bad there are dozens different types of spectroscopy, but that’s probably too advanced.
>Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface
>measured at the surface
Pretty useless.
>Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases
Very intelligent, since we don’t know how much the individual gases contribute. I guess Nobel Prize is in the cards.
>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).
I want a source on this one.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:23:42 No.11813073 File: 1.04 MB, 245x223, 1582659805630.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11813062 >SciTechnol Please try and find something that is actually reputable.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:27:01 No.11813082

>>11813062
>The global average temperature is a simple descriptive statistic that aims to characterize the Earth. Operationally, the global average may be defined as the integral average of the temperatures over the surface of the Earth as would be measured by an ideal weather station sampling the air at every location. As the true Earth has neither ideal temperature stations nor infinitely dense spatial coverage, one can never capture the ideal global average temperature completely; however, the available data can be used to tightly constrain its value. The land surface temperature average is calculated by including only land points in the average. It is important to note that these averages count every square kilometer of land equally; the average is not a station average but a land-area weighted average
I‘m familiar with the literature. Just telling you it isn’t the best. But let’s make a thread and discuss it. I looking for it, if you make it.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:27:31 No.11813085

>>11813072
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:28:06 No.11813086
File: 605 KB, 2355x1938, figure-spm-2-l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11812934
>>colored boxes with unreadably small font
Pic related.

>>No sources listed
The source is IPCC AR4. I expected you to Google it since you think I should Google your arguments.

>A useless infographic that you yourself don't even understand and can't explain in your own words.
It's in plain English. What do you need explained?

>Also not peer reviewed
Wrong.

How much do you want to bet that you will never actually respond to anything in AR4?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:33:57 No.11813102

>>11812947
Warming depends on climate sensitivity, which is why it lies in a large range. What is your point?

>And will the warming cause a natural catastrophe (unknown).
It depends on what you consider a catastrophe. Its effects will be harmful in general to humans and the ecosystems we rely on.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:34:10 No.11813103 >>11802101 >mfw the tree rings heat up at almost exactly the same speed as the air

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:36:33 No.11813111 >>11812998 >First source in the article was so bad they had to retract it. Which one?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:38:43 No.11813117

>>11813102
Well it depends where you live. Russia might have a good time out of it.
The only real potential disaster areas are central/north Africa, middle east and monsoon affected areas. By disaster I mean people have to leave the area.
Ironically these are the places that care the least about agw bc their living standards are so low.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:39:57 No.11813120

>>11813017
>The models that describe future climate are not peer-reviewed, black-boxes, and trash.
Wrong. Try again.

>The models that describe second order effects like food security, economical effect, water distribution, desertification, forest cover, and so on ad nauseam are equally bad.
I doubt you've ever even looked at one.

>So we have a questionable reconstruction and record.
Just because you question it doesn't make it questionable.

>And out comes the truth? Really?
You don't have to believe it, the results are there for anyone to see. You'll never look at them though, because you don't actually care. You're just here to blindly deny reality.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:41:44 No.11813122

>>11813085
That’s not the correct paper their methodology is from another paper from 1996, but I can’t copy it. So I can’t show you were it’s wrong in detail. But the point is they measure cold clouds and use a rather controversial technique on top of it. Better papers are available, but they give a greater span.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:42:28 No.11813125

>>11813046
>And our teacher even than explained to us why it isn’t really correct.
Please explain.

>I had enough lectures on climatology, metrology, advanced statistics, experiment design and dynamic systems to easily understand the papers, hence my proposal to discuss one.
Then why have you repeatedly failed to say anything substantive about the paper this thread is about?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:46:58 No.11813142 >>11813125 Post it and tell we what it says and we discuss.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:51:02 No.11813156 >>11813073 Not an argument, try again.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 20:59:42 No.11813186

>>11813072
>To bad there are dozens different types of spectroscopy, but that’s probably too advanced.
How do multiple types of spectroscopy refute that the greenhouse effect can be observed with spectroscopy? Are you OK?

>Pretty useless.
How so?

>Very intelligent, since we don’t know how much the individual gases contribute.
Wrong. See table 3: https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/78/2/197/55482/Earth-s-Annual-Global-Mean-Energy-Budget

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:01:44 No.11813191 >>11813082 Why not discuss it here? You're free to criticize it. So far all I've heard are vague insults.

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:13:17 No.11813213

>>11812894
>https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf
Arguing that the whole of this pdf is more than the sum of its parts. Almost everything here is true, the physics and the feedback loops it mentions. However, how can they prove AGW with this? Most of the shit that is there is simple, oversimplified.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:14:55 No.11813218 >>11812991 I myself never argued that the CO2 data is bad, it might as well be true. How about AGW actually causing problems for humans down the line?

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:18:14 No.11813226

>>11813117
>Well it depends where you live.
That's why I said in general.

>The only real potential disaster areas
So it has to be a "disaster" for us to do something about it?

>Ironically these are the places that care the least about agw bc their living standards are so low.
Source?

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:25:14 No.11813239 >>11813213 It's clearly not simplified enough if you can't figure it out.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:33:23 No.11813254 >>11813142 https://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252 It says modern warming is much faster and larger than temperature changes in the Northern hemisphere over the last 1300 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 21:35:09 No.11813259 >>11813218 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg2/

Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 22:22:32 No.11813382

>>11802101
Look into the leaked emails of CRU, which was the source of Climategate fiasco. This happened in around 2009. It amazes me that within two or three years of this information coming out, the public had apparently completely forgotten about it and the jewish media was telling us that "the science behind climate change is settled". Yeah right. Lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu, Jun 18, 2020 22:40:37 No.11813428 >>11813382 "Climategate" is a nothing burger, just some innocuous quotes taken of context and misrepresented by retarded deniers.

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 00:16:25 No.11813659 >>11813428 Anon "the nothingburger" McSchizo. Doesn't study physical science. Has big mad opinions about hockey sticks to tell us all about.

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 03:10:00 No.11813988

>>11813048
Your post refutes absolutely nothing in the original post. Rather than attack the science, something which obviously cannot be done, you instead attempt to move the discussion to something you think you can more easily argue, that the modeling is wrong. I actually have an earth science degree thanks, while it’s obvious you have some sort of training in math or something you have absolutely none in Earth science because you do not understand what it is you’re arguing and cannot come up with an actual substantive argument against the information you’re presented with.

It’s fun to see you deniers misunderstand the science and desperately claw onto something tangential you do understand and manage to fail entirely.

So yes “but muh models” is an appropriate reaction

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 05:49:55 No.11814300

>>11813988
>Earth science degree, thinking that that somehow entitles you to assess methodologies in any field with authority.
Your word is as good as any in this anonymous board. You went the easy route and argued semantics rather than actual substance. The whole field is full of morons that think that getting a 1-3 sigma in their models by making their analysis more complex somehow makes the conclusions more useful.

It doesnt, that's not how it works, significance is largely based on good faith outside the realm of physical sciences that doesn't model complex systems. Once non-linearity comes into play, statistical significance means jack shit. The further you go from the current time, models involving complex systems error starts to look like a horizontal hourglass, it just doesnt work. The errors are cumulative, you can't normalize it.

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 05:55:23 No.11814314

>>11813120
>Wrong. Try again.
Nah
>I doubt you've ever even looked at one.
I doubt you've ever even looked at one.
>Just because you question it doesn't make it questionable.
By definition.... complete the sentence
>You're just here to blindly deny reality.
Yet you believe in models that are obviously snuff that likely has little to no predictive power. Accepting a false reality is worse than denying it.

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 07:00:45 No.11814439

>>11814300
Sigh.

The science is simple. I already posted it. We know that a doubling of CO2 will cause a rise of 3 degrees.

We know the ice sheets will melt because they are
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
That's bad

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

We know sea levels will rise because they are.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
That's a disaster

We know crops will fail because they are
https://www.livescience.com/53400-crop-failure-draining-food-supplies-as-planet-warms.html
That's a catastrophe

We know glaciers will melt because they are
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-hell-ice-glacier-threatens-pakistan.html

We know coral will die because it is
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html
That is a catastrophe

No models required. You go on and on and on about how past reconstructions of climate data from trees can't predict the future. Again, you're going on about proxy data, which I said is unnecessary to prove that mankind is causing climate change and climate change is very very bad.

Someone who doesn't know what he's talking about
Arguing with someone who does

Well, I warned you.

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 07:49:35 No.11814517

>>11814314
>Nah
Wrong.

>I doubt you've ever even looked at one.
Wrong.

>By definition.... complete the sentence
Your questioning whatever you don't want to exist doesn't throw doubt on it.

>Yet you believe in models
I don't believe in models, they're empirically validated. Why are you on the science board if you don't understand how science works?

>that are obviously snuff that likely has little to no predictive power.
So "obviously" that you can't even give one substantive argument against them. You're pathetic.

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 08:12:15 No.11814552

>>11814517
>Wrong.
Nah
>Wrong.
Sure, burden of proof or something like that
>Your questioning whatever you don't want to exist doesn't throw doubt on it.
There is doubt in it, in this case, its errors in the models, try harder.
>I don't believe in models, they're empirically validated. Why are you on the science board if you don't understand how science works?
So I have to understand how science works to contribute to an anonymous board with little to no curation? Your most basic premise has holes, try harder.
>So "obviously" that you can't even give one substantive argument against them. You're pathetic.
Some guy did it for me >>11814300

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 10:11:19 No.11814822 >>11814439 >The science is simple hmmm >We know that a doubling of CO2 will cause a rise of 3 degrees. ah, ok, that kind of (((science)))

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 10:18:36 No.11814851 >>11813156 >Implying im trying to argue anything. You sad little man.

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 10:23:17 No.11814866 >>11813988 >Which cannot be done Lol you're not describing science. Don't you have a poli sci class to study for?

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 10:24:52 No.11814867 >>11813988 >Earth science That's adorable! Barely studies basic chemistry, physics and math, gets degree in Earth science. It's like a participation ribbon!

Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 11:19:44 No.11814999

>>11814552
>Sure, burden of proof or something like that
You mean the burden of proof you have to show models are trash?

>There is doubt in it, in this case, its errors in the models, try harder.
Which ones?

>So I have to understand how science works to contribute to an anonymous board with little to no curation?
Yes. Otherwise you're just shitposting and making a fool of yourself.

>Some guy did it for me >>11814300 #
There is nothing substantive there. Complex systems are modeled successfully throughout science. Uncertainty growing over time is already shown in the model results.

This whole thread is just deniers throwing out vague insults and "models bad!" None of you have said anything specific about any climate model.

>>	Anonymous Fri, Jun 19, 2020 11:20:50 No.11815000 >>11814851 Good, so you admit climate change is proven.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math