Why have we seen a new wave in climate change denialism in the past year or so, /sci/? Back in 2008 I was sure this shit had died out. Now even NON-american politicians have gone full retard HURRing.

File: 681 KB, 650x3683, finland and the crash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:10:00 2011 No.2935779 [Reply] [Original]

Why have we seen a new wave in climate change denialism in the past year or so, /sci/?

Back in 2008 I was sure this shit had died out. Now even NON-american politicians have gone full retard HURRing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:14:00 2011 No.2935790 Because rich people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for their own benefit, even if it fucks over everyone else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:14:00 2011 No.2935791 Anthropogenic causes have a de minimis impact on Earth's climate. Fuck your "denialism." Prejudicial terminology and well poisoning are shitty debate tactics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:16:00 2011 No.2935807 Isn't is because Geologists have taken the position that current climate change isn't being caused by humans? People seem to like science unless it's going against their own preconceived notions. Then its Republican/Democrat 'hurr'ing.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:17:00 2011 No.2935809

>>2935790
Other rich people have a vested interest in exaggerating the climate situation as much as possible so that they can seek economic rents from the regulatory state.

Is one bias stronger than the other? I don't know, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:22:00 2011 No.2935831 >>2935807 Maybe a few % of the total geologist but the overwhelming majority of scientist say it's manmade and are freaking out trying to keep the US governments from getting rid of the EPA cause oil companies told them to.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:23:00 2011 No.2935840
File: 4 KB, 126x103, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2935809

Yeah man fuck those 'environmentalists' and their massive piles of hippie-cash.

Because I've never met a scientist, hippie or activist that wasnt swimming in the huge pools of money that service to the environment inevitably brings.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 11:26:00 2011 No.2935849

>>2935779
>Back in 2008
Climategate, glaciergate, whatevermoregate perhaps introduced some healthy element of skepticism. The 'hard' science behind the general arguments are bullshit.

Now of course I agree that CO2 levels is increasing, and I can accept that temperatures may be rising. That CO2 is the cause for rising temperatures, or that temperatures are even globally and unabmgiously rising is something i'll have to flag for skepetic review.

Climate change today is more about politics and politic correctness than science. It's also a cashcow for some and a potential major economic disaster for other. It's like the HARD ON DRUGS FOR VOTES issue. Scientific studies says it's counterproductive and should be left in the hands of the medical community, politicans on the other hand stand to gain from demonization and polarization, caring more about votes than human lives.

in b4
>hurdurrdeniarrr

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:27:00 2011 No.2935852 File: 29 KB, 640x400, lost screw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change I'll just leave this here.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:29:00 2011 No.2935862
File: 72 KB, 313x400, hannity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>well look at that
>Coldest winter in 400 years seen across the globe
>climate "scientists" seem confused
>mfw

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/coldest-winter-in-400-years-seen-across-the-gl
obe/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:32:00 2011 No.2935870 >>2935831 missed the point. No one disagrees that the planet is getting warmer. People disagree as to wh its happening >lrn2think

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:32:00 2011 No.2935871 >>2935862 >La Nina year >climate scientists are confused Look sir, trolls!

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 11:35:00 2011 No.2935882

>>2935840
The most vocal anti-AGW bloggers/proponents are not funded by the oil industry(or any other corporate interest).

The majority of pro-AGW legislation and correctional suggestions involve multi-billion investments in renewable energy.

So one side earns money from blog advertisements and donations as long as people keep visiting and reading their arguments.

The other side stands to cash in massive profits if the current line is held.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:35:00 2011 No.2935884 >>2935862 Likely highly exagerated theres no way it was colder than the little ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

>>	Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 11:38:00 2011 No.2935896 >>2935884 LIA occured after the "medival warm period". Is it not reasonable to argue for cyclic climate patterns and claim the current winter is the equivalent phenomena after the "global warm period".

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:41:00 2011 No.2935908 >>2935870 1 Climate scientist are the experts on climate not geologist 2 Th majority of scientist in every field every scientific organization agree it's manmade there is no controversy.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:41:00 2011 No.2935912

>>2935882

Bloggers don't fund congressman. They don't lobby for legislation. They're are not the primary opponent of action. Seriously, am I getting trolled?

No one party stands to lose more money from this debate than the energy industry. Coal. Oil. Any corporation that pollutes and can expect to be slammed by legislation. Can anyone really insinuate that a couple billion dollars in incentives for green technology from the government and the couple hundred million for climate change research compares to the most moneyed interests to ever exist? The fuck. If you want to argue about science, you argue about science. You point out methodology flaws, you provide contradictory data. You do not insinuate that fucking research scientists are faking data so that that cashcow keeps on giving. That's fucking asinine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:45:00 2011 No.2935931 >>2935908 in other words, this:>>2935807

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:46:00 2011 No.2935936 >>2935896 I was using evidence that the time period was exagerated. I never stated anything about this winter being the result of a post global warming cycle. I never mentioned cycles at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:48:00 2011 No.2935944 >>2935779 it's scripted. just play along, it'll all be over with shortly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:49:00 2011 No.2935946 >>2935931 >In other words... >links to what I'm saying is BS wat

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:51:00 2011 No.2935955

>>2935908
Ordinarily that sort of agreement would be reliable, but it's not in the face of such overwhelming political incentives. It's similar to the issue of race. I'm not saying there are racial differences, but the "consensus" that there are not is unreliable and fails to be convincing in itself for the same reasons.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 11:52:00 2011 No.2935960

>>2935912
>Bloggers don't fund congressman. They don't lobby for legislation.
I meant PUBLIC visibility. WUWT is by a wide fucking margin the most popular climate change blog, counting both sides and it's cited in news and serves as a hub for other anti-AGW people to formulate excellent arguments and counterpoints against the status-quo maintaining line.

If you're thinking about buying politicians then fuck do i know. Some politicians engage(and lift blogger content/arguments) in order to get the votes from sceptics without getting paid. The MASSIVE PROFIT incentive in the debate is however on the pro-AGW side, getting california to 30% renewable energy total to 2020 is a very delicious business opportunity for everyone that's in the renewable energy business, and that's only one of legislation-induced profitability.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:52:00 2011 No.2935966

>>2935946
I'm sorry if my posting technique is too advanced for you to follow

>main reason why environmentalists aren't taken seriously is because they're mostly retarded. It's unfortunate: some of the stuff they say is important, but their own asininity dominates these subjects

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:56:00 2011 No.2935991 >>2935862 You're an idiot. People who know their shit tend to call it 'climate change' rather than 'global warming' for a reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:58:00 2011 No.2935999 >>2935955 Al Gore or someone from a company can be unreliable but you cannot say the scientific facts that glacier are shrinking is biased and unreliable.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 11:59:00 2011 No.2936002

>>2935849
climategate? is this a joke?

those vultures hacked into 3 years of confidential emails and all they could find was a short message saying, 'hey, we need to clean up these graphs by trimming off those outlier results...'

-the definition of outlier is 'out of the ordinary;' that means, out of the 99.98% readings, .02 were out of the ordinary range and needed to be cut in order to make a simpler looking graph which was to be presented to non scientists. this shit happens all the time.

it's not like they are ignoring 99.98% of the data and only basing their graph on .02% (like the anthropogenic climate change deniers).

>>2935862
if the earth were to warm up significantly, that would set off a chain reaction that would cause both hotter summers and colder winters; it would push climate to the extremes, which is exactly what you're reporting. but you know that. you're trolling, and unlike hannity, you're not even making bank.

the truth is, i'm actually not on either side here, although i think it looks pretty bad for the deniers. every month i see more new evidence that the earth is actually more fucked than we believed. i think, more likely than not, the deniers may be wrong based simply on the quality of the evidence they present and the quality of their attacks -even if some of the claims of climate scientists are pretty extreme.

-speaking of which, if you just do a bit of critical thinking, imho climategate turns out to be a win for climate scientists because after sifting through 3 years of confidential emails, they only thing that was found that could possibly be used against them was a very ordinary comment about trimming outlier results from a graph. nothing about soros or the communist nazi jew globalist treehuggers who are banking on the failure of the... i dunno, what was the conspiracy again? i know carbon credits are garbage but most of the leftists are against carbon credits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:00:00 2011 No.2936009 >>2935966 >>aren't taken seriously is because they're mostly retarded... generalize often?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:03:00 2011 No.2936016 >>2935991 >>2936002 Nobody was calling it "climate change" until recently, when a minor trend of cold winters got started. It's still a failed prediction that has been subject to post-hoc rehabilitation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:03:00 2011 No.2936021 http://www.skepticalscience.com/ I will just leave this here..

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:04:00 2011 No.2936025 >>2936002 I believe the conspiracy has something to do with sapping and impurifying alex jones' precious bodily fluids with blasphemy towards the free market god

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:06:00 2011 No.2936029 >>2936016 Yeah... nobody was calling it "climate change" in, say, 1992. http://books.google.com/books?id=gy8hgCGEkzEC

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:06:00 2011 No.2936030 >>2935966 again wat I'm saying that geologist agreeing climate change is not manmade is BS. IDK why you think that me saying geologist DO agree climate change is manmade can be interpreted as geologist DO NOT agree climate change is manmade.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:06:00 2011 No.2936033

>>2935999
How fucking hard is it for you to understand that the issue is *WHAT* is causing whatever climatic changes are occurring, not the changes themselves. When you say I "can't dispute" the glacier measurements, that's an obvious straw man, because I *don't* dispute any (reliable) measurements of recent climate changes. Please pull your head out of your ass.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 12:09:00 2011 No.2936046

>>2936002
>3 years of confidential emails
first mails from 1996. Last mails 2009. Yup, three years bro.
Did you mean to throw some nice feint where you pretent to have read them and being and expert capable of instantly discarding them? Well, you failed, and you obviously haven't read anything of the mails themself, you probably copypasted from a "how to defend AGW" FAQ

> all they could find was a short message saying, 'hey, we need to clean up these graphs by trimming off those outlier results...'
Did i mention you hadn't read any of the mails? Oh I did? Well, you still haven't read any of the mails.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:09:00 2011 No.2936047 >>2936033 Do you dispute the fact that temperature rise stopped correlating with solar forcing in recent decades?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:10:00 2011 No.2936054 inb4 "shills"

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:11:00 2011 No.2936062 >>2936033 Because there is no controversy in the scientific community it's only in politics where a large part say it is not manmade or isn't clear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:15:00 2011 No.2936075 >>2936046 What's your opinions on the numerous independent inquiries that found no evidence of fraud in the climategate emails? Were they all perhaps bought off by the leftist controlled intellectual academia?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:17:00 2011 No.2936090

>>2936047
I would say that it was never that tightly correlated, but it does appear that there has been less overall correlation in recent decades.

That doesn't prove that now human activity is the driver. Climate is chaotic. Maybe the apparent lack of correlation is just a chance phenomenon. Maybe the climate took a random walk through some threshold of criticality, leading to some other natural cause coming into play.

I do not believe things about the natural world unless there is proof. There is not adequate proof to convince me that climate change is being driven by anthropogenic CO2 emission to more than a minor extent (perhaps 10% of the overall apparent shift). It would be bizarre if if it managed to have no impact at all (just because so many things impact climate to some degree or another), but the question remains as to the ultimate effect size of CO2 emission, and I am not convinced that it is a major player.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:21:00 2011 No.2936108

Because "skeptics" don't read things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/31/31greenwire-study-of-temperature-data-confirms-warming-tre-8
4356.html

The Koch brothers funded a group of avowed climate change skeptics to "prove" that it's a myth. They've analyzed a small but representative amount of the data and have come to a preliminary conclusion that climate change is indeed happening in accordance to what many scientists have been saying.

And then people spout off things like >>2935882 suggesting that all the scientists in this just want to make some nameless, faceless enviro-entity rich. Meanwhile the Koch brothers, owners of the second largest privately owned company in America that has a huge hand in oil and coal, fund physicists and statisticians with a known bias against data and say "Here's your conclusion, now make the data fit the conclusion," and the data still isn't shown to be false. The butthurt was magnificent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:22:00 2011 No.2936112 >>2936090 What is your explanation then?

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 12:25:00 2011 No.2936126

>>2936075
One of the "independent" inquiries was comissioned by the university itself.
Another of them asked Mann to compile a list of the mails to review.

None of the issues that skeptics flagged was ever touched upon by the inquiries. They were pretty much whitewashes. And it was expected that they'd be so as they rapidly materialized and were happily let in to take part of the material quite fast after the climategate mess, that is, the "independent" investationgs had full backing and endorsement from the relevant instituations themself, which should rise a few quesitons.

And if they were so independent and resolving them of all guild, how come all the releavant insitutions are still eagerly blocking every Freedom Of Information Act requests that are headed their way?

Either way, these discussions are a dead end. No one will change their minds, no one will bother to write proper arguments, no one bothers to cite sources and generally all good arguments are ignored or transmuted into strawmen: The following paragraph is a summary of the average depth this discussion will reach:

If global warming is so real? How come we are not on fire?
AGW: 0
anti-AGW: 1

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:25:00 2011 No.2936128 >>2936090 >Maybe the apparent lack of correlation is just a chance phenomenon. Indeed. Who says it isn't just random chance? It's not like climate scientists have studied the statistical probability of AGW being real.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:27:00 2011 No.2936138

>>2936112
Did you read my post? I offered a sketch of two different ones.

You're shifting the burden of proof by suggesting that climate change should be assumed to be anthropogenic unless proved otherwise. Once again, I will not accept that it is anthropogenic unless I see adequate proof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:29:00 2011 No.2936148 >>2936138 >>assumed to be anthropogenic unless proved otherwise i think you don't know what that big word means...

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:29:00 2011 No.2936149 >>2936108 In case you forgot, the controversy is over what causes it, not that it's happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:30:00 2011 No.2936152 >>2936126 >"independent" You could've just said yes if you truly believe the GW alarmists control the investigators. I too agree it's pretty futile to try to argue with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:32:00 2011 No.2936165 >>2936149 Only because the denialists were running out of bullshit arguments to say that the world wasn't warming. They had to invent new bullshit for a new millenium.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:33:00 2011 No.2936169 File: 110 KB, 360x273, _methinks wrongthinks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2936138 ahem...

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:35:00 2011 No.2936175 >>2936165 and while all the idiots continuously argue about who caused what and what it's doing, the world became hostile to man. unless of course you're one of the richest few, in which case you'll do just fine...

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:35:00 2011 No.2936178

>>2936148
Yep, here comes one of the cheapest tactics in the whole book. "You don't know what that word you used means." Well, there's pretty much no fucking way I can prove that I do, making it unfalsifiable as well as irrelevant. If I define it, then "You just now looked it up in the dictionary."

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:37:00 2011 No.2936183

>>2936138
Do you have an argument against the IPCC meta-study that concluded that AGW is real with 90% probability, other than scientists "hiding the decline", using a "Nature trick" etc? (if I remember correctly, those were the buzzwords most often used by conservative blogs at that time)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:39:00 2011 No.2936189 >>2936178 when you're arguing, you might want to use the correct word. all i'm saying. when you use the incorrect word, your argument doesn't really make sense. all i'm saying.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:42:00 2011 No.2936201

>>2936183
Their models are flawed or incomplete. A statistical judgement in the absence of an adequate model for how the climate actually behaves means pretty much nothing. The IPCC climate model has made no good predictions. It is not empirically validated. It's just some mathematical masturbation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:44:00 2011 No.2936209 Assume for a moment that we do nothing. Is it worth it?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:45:00 2011 No.2936211

>>2936189
In what way was my usage incorrect? "Of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature" is pretty much exactly the meaning I was going for. What is the problem?

I strive for correctness in my use of language, but I can't fix the supposed issue if you don't tell me what you think is wrong with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:47:00 2011 No.2936221 File: 6 KB, 252x260, 127.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sure is wikipedia in here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:48:00 2011 No.2936224 CLIMATE CHANGE - yes ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE - almost certainly BUY INTO OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM - hell no There are corporate interests on every side of everything, but the truth is the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:49:00 2011 No.2936231 >>2936221 Yeah there are never any facts on Wikipedia, it's all lies. Conservapedia anyone?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:52:00 2011 No.2936240 >>2936201 Sadly, reality disagrees with you, and the models work. I'm eagerly waiting your expert criticism of the models in a scientific journal.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 12:53:00 2011 No.2936243

>>2936152
>You could've just said yes if you truly believe the GW alarmists control the investigators.

I don't think they control the investigators. I think the investigators are entirely sold on the idea and felt like it was their duty to set the unruly denier children straight, and instead of actually bothering to be independent they figure that deniers are retards so a formal/official case closed all is well note should suffice. Reading into context and bothering to listen to the denialist side of the story would be a far too large effort, so you take a cursory glance at the supposedly offending mateiral, realize it's a fuckton to read, ask for the relevant parts and get presented something irrelevant that you can easily dismiss. Cased closed, you were an independent inquirity even if you were entirely uninterested and incompetent your investigation can still be cited as proof of validity.

Independent inquiry is just a lable, sortof like the "peoples republic of china" is actually the "autocratic dictatorship of china."

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 12:53:00 2011 No.2936244 >>2936240 I can't criticize publications that don't exist about a model that is not adequately vetted.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:03:00 2011 No.2936291
File: 105 KB, 480x640, 1301228113826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2936243
>I don't think they control the investigators.
But you do think so, you said it yourself: The "investigators are entirely sold on the idea" that AGW is real.
I wouldn't have wanted to say this, but this is exactly the same reasoning creationists give when discussing the support for evolution among scientists. Usually, they don't think that there's a satanic conspiracy that's controlling science, but that scientists are indoctrinated into believing in evolution, think that creationists are retarded and don't bother to look at the theory critically.

I did read you whole post, and the word "independent" is scare quotes summarized it well, I think. This time there's no scorn intended to be in my words; if three independent investigations can't convince you, I don't know what a nameless person on 4chan like me can do. I'll just refrain from arguing from now on.

Here's a kitty as an apology for not continuing this discussion.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:10:00 2011 No.2936328

>>2936291
You know, it doesn't do you any credit to provide a misleading summary of a post only 2 above your own in the thread. That's some nice guilt by association by the way. Furthermore, it's not even an accurate analogy, since he was saying that the primary cause of their unreliability was their self-selection as investigators. That's different from saying "all scientists are indoctrinated."

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:17:00 2011 No.2936347

>>2936328
I really see no difference between AGW skeptics, creationist, antivaxxers and the like. My point was not an argument against his credibility, I just wanted him to see how most science orientated people who accept the evidence for AGW see him. I really do associate the two groups with each other.

I didn't intend my summary to be misleading. Creationists too complain that only pro-evolution scientists make up the editorial boards of science journals.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 13:21:00 2011 No.2936365

>>2936291
There's a dozen or so bloggers and FOIA requests that are denied. These are independently filed too.

> exactly the same reasoning creationists give
Your argument is exactly the same reasoning creationists give, arguments based in words and appeal to majority and other hollow points, no solid facts anywhere.

And this is still pointless. I claim you're full of shit, you claim i'm full of shit, i claim you're indoctrinated, you claim i'm indoctrinated, no one bothers to read or give more than cursory glance at the other sides arguments and articles.

I've been through this a million times. It's a dead end. Recycled arguments, refusal to look at sources, handwaving away solid arguments and nitpicking on semantics instead.

The best way to solve this argument is to shut up and wait until 2020-2030(at which point all predictions will have turned out miserably wrong) when you'll be too embarassed to say you were pro-AGW, making it a moot point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:28:00 2011 No.2936396 >>2936365 What if they're right? Then what? If they're wrong, haha, yeah, they messed up and went bad. But if they're right and we do nothing because of people like you? You will be blamed for fucking up all of humanity.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:30:00 2011 No.2936404

Lefties employ weak debating tactics, "it's manmade, it's happening, there is no debate, etc." in an effort to move past the fact that they're wrong and have no idea what they're talking about. It's just a massive fallacy. Arguments ad populum and appeals to authority and/or emotion are the only thing they know. I too love this planet and don't like seeing oil-covered pelicans dying on beaches. But the libs are simply arrogant children who see humanity as separate from nature instead of enmeshed in it. Because we have a conscience they expect us to cast off all our destructive ways but they can't see that to build you must destroy. You blow up a mountain and use the stone to build your castle, you don't say what a majestic mountain, we shall live in tents and worship it. Unless you're a complete hippy and don't care about shelter or comfort. This is our planet, it is our destiny to shape it in man's image. We are not a cancer on this planet but rather the blood that pumps through its veins. Libs are self-hating, self-destructive, and given the option would probably sacrifice the entire species for the 'wellbeing' of mother earth. They are overly emotional children who don't really understand scientific inquiry or skepticism and simply repeat ad nauseum whatever pseudoscientific bullshit they hear on the jon stewart show and the discovery channel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:31:00 2011 No.2936412 >>2936365 Damn, I must resist the urge to respond. I thank you for the discussion and apologize for all the misleading stuff I said about you. I hope we'll be able to continue the discussion in 2021. Good night.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:33:00 2011 No.2936430 >>2936404 Wanting the planet to be inhabitable in the wake of huge amounts of evidence = worshipping mountains and never building anything and hating themselves. Right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:35:00 2011 No.2936441 >>2936404 It's interesting because your argument is an emotional rant about some imaginary liberal hippy enemy you made up in your head.

Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Sat Apr 23 13:35:00 2011 No.2936446

>>2936396
The cautionary principle is the worst fucking argument in this case.

Lets see, our current CO2 level will take a few thousand years to reabsorb into nature. So even if we do the most extreme scenario and destroy the global economy to reduce CO2 output by 100% we still won't slow it, And hundred of millions will probably die due to the economic shutdown, and things could still turn to shit.

Now if we instead follow the suggested 20% scenario we'll end up paying tens of billions of dollars in economic slowdown costs. And the benefits calculated usings IPCCs very own formula will be LESS THAN THE INSTRUMENTAL MARGIN OF ERROR. That is, we can spend a hundred billion dollars to feel good about a change that CAN NOT BE MEASURED and would have no significant influence on the following consequences, again calculated by IPCCs own methods.

So we either: Commit suicide. Pay billions for no effect. Pay nothing for no effect.
Or we invoke enviro-magic and fuel our cars with unicorn blood and eat and breathe rainbows.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:37:00 2011 No.2936450

Because there's no evidence to back up the extreme claims of radiative forcing of small changes in greenhouse gasses, and the temperature change, and storm predictions from the al gore types have all failed to materialize. That and the various shenanigans by the activist scientists who are pushing this crap.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:38:00 2011 No.2936456

>>2936446
>Or we invoke enviro-magic and fuel our cars with unicorn blood and eat and breathe rainbows.
Electric cars, nuclear power, and renewable energy such as wind and wave, you fucking dinosaur.

Regardless of whether they are right, losing our dependance on oil and coal is only a good thing anyway.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:40:00 2011 No.2936470

>>2936396
There's an oscillation in my backyard that I need one million dollars to build a damping device to stop, otherwise it will amplify until it rips apart the earth and all of humanity dies. Yeah, sounds flimsy, but... WHAT IF I'M RIGHT? WHAT IF I'm RIGHT? Better play it safe and fork over the 1 mil. Worst case then, you're just out a mil, but at least humanity survives.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:42:00 2011 No.2936480

>>2936365

Dude, think about the time and money it takes to fulfill an FOIA request. Back in 2009 McIntyre and his fans sent something like a hundred FOIA requests to Mann et al., and if we assume that they took the time to look into every single one and provide everything that was asked to every single person that asked for it, he would spend the rest of his career fulfilling FOIA requests and not, you know, conducting research or teaching classes like his job requires. Unlike retired mining engineers, scientists actually have lives to attend to and work obligations to fulfill. Also, Mann does not decide whether or not to fulfill an FOIA request. That is the university's role, so all the anger of the pseudo-skeptics are directed against the wrong target in the first place.

Furthermore, the requests themselves were often frivolous. The targets of FOIA requests were usually data that was either a) already publicly available to anyone who knows how to use fucking Google; and b) bound up by proprietary closed licenses that you need to go to the original license-holder in order to obtain the data. McIntyre, for example, hounded Mann for very specific datasets, like one from China, which for obvious reasons doesn't publish everything openly, or the proprietary set from Canada. Mann was bound by contract not to disclose Canadian whether data, but McIntyre, BEING A CANADIAN HIMSELF, already had free access to that data. Once he hounded Bradley et al. for a paleoclimate dataset from Russia, a dataset he had obtained from the original Russian team YEARS ago!

Now you've got Republican AGs and Senators and so forth trying to bring litigation against climate scientists on spurious grounds. Judges throw out the charges as frivolous, and then the cycle repeats itself. It's nothing more than harassment.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:42:00 2011 No.2936482

>>2936480

Now let's take a look into the e-mails themselves. They're correspondence with what, like 10 people? Did they ever say to each other, "hey isn't it great that we're trying to impose our will on the blind American people and trick them into believing something fake, so that we can increase their taxes and also our own?" Nor did they say "Wow those suckers didn't realize Arrhenius is a figment of our derange imaginations" or anything like that. It was cherry-picked quotes often totally irrelevant to the main body of evidence supporting climate change. The tropopause is rising. The stratosphere cooling. Animal migration patterns moving poleward. Ice sheets losing gigatons of mass per annum. And obviously, rising global temperatures. Nothing in the e-mails falsifies any of this.

tl;dr, frivolous FOIA requests would be identified by /b/ as trolling technique at its finest

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:46:00 2011 No.2936496 >>2936470 Yes this is clearly on the same level as AGW which has mountains of evidence supporting it.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:47:00 2011 No.2936505

>>2936456
>Regardless of whether they are right, losing our dependance on oil and coal is only a good thing anyway.
That's what it always comes down to. "Yeah the science may be complete bullshit, but it's the political actions we actually care about."

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

IT'S THE WHORING OUT OF SCIENCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, AND IT'S THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THAT WILL PAY THE PRICE IN THE END.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:48:00 2011 No.2936507 >>2936441 Yeah liberals don't exist at all! They're just a figment of my imagination! You really got me there bro!

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:49:00 2011 No.2936511

>>2936505
Why are you so all or nothing? Uh-oh, other good consequences also encourage us to seek this change, aside from the threat of our civilisation being destroyed that I want to pretend is not happening because someone on the internet said that we don't want to use oil and coal anymore and he supported them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:50:00 2011 No.2936515 >>2936507 Yes of course, and just like the ones in your teary eyed rant too. brb, off to worship a mountain.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:51:00 2011 No.2936524
File: 37 KB, 800x600, dist1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2936482

Now before anyone goes "HURRR DURRRR DATA IS ADJUSTED THAT MEANS IT'S FAKE," therefore making the necessity of hacking e-mails and publishing them online unnecessary in the first place, I'd like to counter this common misconception.

If you're on /sci/ you should now that raw data is NEVER published as-is. It is ALWAYS accompanied by adjustments for factors that might skew the data. This isn't just a climatology or Earth science thing, it's in EVERY GOD DAMN SCIENTIFIC FIELD.

In a previous thread: http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/2926905

Someone said this:

>Us proles don't get to see the raw unadjusted data, instead we get to see data that is adjusted for "bias."

I posted a series of links to raw data, but being retarded, he only saw the front page with the graphs on it, and decided not to click on the links to the actual raw data that is available to everyone to see. Anyway, you can compare the raw data with the adjusted data. In the temperature datasets, if there is a conspiracy, then you should see that the adjustments are all for higher temperatures. But apparently, adjustments are almost equal towards higher AND lower adjustments. There's no grounds to the argument that scientists are forging the entire temperature record, and even skeptics like Muller and his BEST team can't deny that.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:54:00 2011 No.2936542
File: 11 KB, 466x290, _45146192_ice_extent_466.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2936505

>IT'S THE WHORING OUT OF SCIENCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, AND IT'S THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE THAT WILL PAY THE PRICE IN THE END.

I bet you believe the IPCC is "alarmist"

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:55:00 2011 No.2936546

>>2936505
This is exactly right. Climatewhores care nothing for facts, it's just a means to a end. what worries me is to what end do they wish us to reach? they scream about protecting gaia from the evils of humanity but care little about protecting humanity itself. They hate themselves and want us to hate ourselves too. They preach sappy love and understanding but the minute you understand them and the weakness of their appeals and disagree with their bullshit they call you a nazi or robberbaron and their laughable superiority complex allows them to sleep soundly at night, because they just KNOW what's
best, always.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:57:00 2011 No.2936555 >>2936546 Man, you are telling those imaginary people in your head SO HARD! Fuck yeah!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 13:58:00 2011 No.2936560 >>2936546 Straw men, straw men errywhere How about a real argument for a change?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:00:00 2011 No.2936567 >>2936542 The IPCC is an activist organization organized for activist purposes. Read it's fucking mission statement. Only complete idiots think that because scientists are involved in it it is a scientific organization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:01:00 2011 No.2936574 >>2936511 I'm not all-or-nothing. Let's use wind energy if it make economic sense. Let's just not tell lies in the name of science to make it happen.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:02:00 2011 No.2936582

>>2936515
Yes, you most certainly aren't one of these arrogant, falsely superior children to whom I directed my criticisms. You must be vastly intelligent, a truthseeker and sagely perceiver of the future. You are never wrong, you are special, you're loved and an amazing thinker, I mean your mommy's been telling you this since you were five so IT MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT?!

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:03:00 2011 No.2936585

>>2936567

Please explain, in the Working Group I of the FAR, what mistakes the IPCC made that were contrary to the scientific evidence available at the time

Then tell me, how did they projections match up with reality? Hint: They were wrong about something. It was not that their projections were too "alarmist."

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:03:00 2011 No.2936586 >>2936542 You post that graph as if it validated anything the IPCC was predicted. The reality was way outside the models. The fact that they over predicted the arctic ice does not somehow validate their models. It invalidates them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:05:00 2011 No.2936589 >>2936582 I'm those things? I thought that was you! Do I ever have it wrong!

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:05:00 2011 No.2936591 >>2936586 The reality was outside of the SRES models, sure But it was wrong in the opposite direction of what skeptics were saying. Rather than being too "alarmist, reality turned out WORSE than many of the most pessimistic projections of the IPCC.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:07:00 2011 No.2936596 >>2936560 >>2936555 They aren't imaginary, i lived in the bay area, ive met them, youre one of them, you simply cant handle it, and now you shall disregard every point ive made, grow up

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:08:00 2011 No.2936601 >>2936596 You haven't made any points. Please make a point: what is it about our current understanding of the science that you object to? What part of the science is wrong, and why?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:12:00 2011 No.2936616

>>2936601
Not him, but there's no actual science that is wrong here. There's just claims about there being science, where there is no science. And there pure conjectures that are treated as if they were facts, and used as inputs for computer models, to game them into giving the desired results.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:15:00 2011 No.2936628

>>2936591
The models are proven wrong. Reality is outside their margins of errors, whether it's in the "good" or "bad" direction for a particular measure. They don't predict ANYTHING.

People who say, "well it's in the bad direction, so it must mean the assumptions of the IPCC are correct" are complete morons. It means that the assumptions are incorrect. There's less ice than expected, air temps are lower than expected. The assumptions behind the models are WRONG. You can't blame anything on the assumptions, because they are WRONG. You can't say CO2 is causing there to be less ice, because the CO2 model they created doesn't match reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:18:00 2011 No.2936637 >>2936596 What point? That they worship mountains, or some other drivel you made up? You didn't make a point about AGW, only cried about some weird stereotype of its supporters who you claim are emotional and dislike people.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:22:00 2011 No.2936651

All of science is wrong! Did you know that none of our original ideas have stood the test of scientific scrutiny and they have all been revised endlessly?

Having the models be revised is GOOD not bad. They are not going to be perfect unless we can model every atom, which is not going to happen any time soon, but they can go to an acceptable margin of error.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:22:00 2011 No.2936652

>>2936628

You're mistaken on a number of points

1. Actually you don't need GCMs to know that increased CO2 will warm the atmosphere. The greenhouse warming properties have been well-established by over a century and a half of laboratory experiments. The physics are well-established. And we have measured an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration 280 to 380 ppmv. The models, theory, and observation are in close agreement on this.

2. The temperature actually falls withing SRES projections, it's between A1T and A1B, the second- and third-most pessimistic scenarios. So it is not true that the Earth has been cooling. I have no idea how the hell you managed to get to that conclusion.

3. Because one aspect of the models is wrong, EVERYTHING is wrong? Isn't that a big fucking logical fallacy right there?

4. Fallacy #2: because reality turned out worse than most IPCC projected climate indicators, there is NO cause for concern? How the hell does that follow? If things are worse than expected, then they're worse than expected, not "no cause for concern"

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:38:00 2011 No.2936721

>>2936652
1) You're flat wrong. For example, it is well established that increasing CO2 in the stratosphere COOLS the stratosphere. And that's is only one of the points where your assumptions are wrong. There is NO science that conclusively tells us (even qualitatively, much less quantitatively) what a transition of CO2 from 280 to 380 ppmv in the troposphere should do to the temperature of the troposphere.

2.The current temperatures are only within the most recent predictions. They are below the older predictions. It's not hard to predict tomorrows global average temperature based on today's, even if you have no workable model at all.

3. It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that non-working models are based on false assumptions or bad data.

4. "Cause for concern" is not a scientific concept. It is a political one. There is scientific basis for saying that "less ice in the arctic" = "worse" and not "better". More to the point, there is no basis for blaming it on certain mechanisms like CO2, when the models designed to do so fail.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:47:00 2011 No.2936768

>>2936652
Despite using the word "fallacy" you have not pointed out any actual fallacies. If a model cannot predict anything, then what value does it have? Sure, you can revise it to take into account new data. That's well and good, maybe you're making some progress. The problem is that the revised model is still not validated, because it has still not made a single good prediction.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:52:00 2011 No.2936802

>>2936721

>increasing CO2 in the stratosphere COOLS the stratosphere.

Don't you mean increased CO2, well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, raises the tropopause and cools the stratosphere? And yes, this is consistent with our knowledge of physics.We live in the troposphere after all, you know, the part where weather takes place and the part this is warming. I'm not really sure what your point is.

>current temperatures are only within the most recent predictions. They are below the older predictions.

Which older predictions? Hansen's 1988? Current temperatures are quite close to his B and C scenarios, so you're wrong about that. If you were right though, that means the models are improving their capabilities.

>It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that non-working models are based on false assumptions or bad data.

If the models did not look anything like real life, or their projects were wildly off the mark in multiple climate indicators, then yes, I suppose you could say that the models aren't very good. But that's not the case. While models are very realistic, of course they don't imitate reality perfectly, and you're willing to dismiss it as useless instead of what a rational human being might do, i.e. refine the models further.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:55:00 2011 No.2936824

>>2936802

>4. "Cause for concern" is not a scientific concept. It is a political one.

So I suppose medicine is fundamentally unscientific, because it adheres to our political values of self-preservation and caring for our fellow man?

Let's say the clathrate gun goes off and humanity becomes extinct. An extreme scenario, but bear with me. You're arguing that this has no relevance at all to politics? That if we define it as a positive for human beings in the political sphere, then it's totally fine if humanity becomes extinct?

Sure thing bro

Btw, the reason why decreasing Arctic sea ice extent is bad is because it reduces the albedo of the Earth, contributing to more global warming and can be a powerful short-term positive feedback. I cannot fathom under what political value system this can be considered a positive. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

>>2936768

>you have not pointed out any actual fallacies.

Do you have trouble understanding the own things you write?

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm

If A (any part of the model is bad, the entire model is worthless)

Then B (the entire model is worthless)

A, therefore B

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 14:59:00 2011 No.2936847

>>2936802

>>current temperatures are only within the most recent predictions. They are below the older predictions.

>Which older predictions? Hansen's 1988? Current temperatures are quite close to his B and C scenarios, so you're wrong about that. If you were right though, that means the models are improving their capabilities.

Ah, yes, the shotgun approach to prediction. It's like those people who predict a natural disaster every month and sometimes turn out to be right.

This does nothing to validate the model, only demonstrates that if you feed various sorts of garbage into it, you get some erratic results, some of which coincidentally sort-of match reality.

Furthermore, better performance over a shorter time-horizon is no reason to infer improvement.

>>It's not a logical fallacy to conclude that non-working models are based on false assumptions or bad data.

>If the models did not look anything like real life, or their projects were wildly off the mark in multiple climate indicators, then yes, I suppose you could say that the models aren't very good.
Well that's right, so I suppose they aren't very good.

>But that's not the case. While models are very realistic, of course they don't imitate reality perfectly, and you're willing to dismiss it as useless instead of what a rational human being might do, i.e. refine the models further.

Nobody is objecting to their refining the models. Maybe if they refine them good and hard they will become working models. The problem is that they have no demonstrated accuracy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:05:00 2011 No.2936872 >>2936824 I'm LOLing at the fact that while you point to a page that correctly describes affirming the consequent, you go on to demonstrate a valid syllogism (modus ponens) as your example of where he has committed the fallacy.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:08:00 2011 No.2936888

>>2936847

>The problem is that they have no demonstrated accuracy.

You have affirmed this over and over again without establishing it. No arguments or evidence, just HUUUUUUUUUR MODELS BAD

This is all a red herring though. Apparently you think that it is impossible to know that the Earth has warmed and will continue to warm based on anything other than models. This raises doubts about your understanding of the science.

Tell me if you agree with this statement: in 1824, the French scientist Joseph Fourier hypothesized the existence of heat-trapping gases raising the surface temperature of the Earth. If they did not exist, calculations based on solar irradiance alone would make the Earth 33 C cooler than it is now. This was first experimentally confirmed by John Tyndall in 1859, identifying CO2 and water vapour as two of such gases, and reaffirmed by Gilbert Plass in 1956. Thus we know the precise physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse bases, based on numerous laboratory experiments. Links to scientific studies will be provided upon request.

Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, based on what I've just told you? And if you increase the concentration of CO2, should that not mean the surface of the Earth will warm?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:12:00 2011 No.2936910

>>2936888
If you fart a greenhouse gas (methane) will be produced. Furthermore, this gas has a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. Maybe excessive farting is the true cause of climate change?

The problem here is effect size. Nobody disputes that at least under certain circumstances CO2 can trap heat. The question is whether the particular circumstances are realized, and if so to what extent heat is trapped by additional CO2. In the abstract, there are very, very many things that can have some conceivable impact on the climate. The question of course is the proportionality of their contribution.

By raising these issues that are not in dispute you have created yet another straw man.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:16:00 2011 No.2936932

>>2935779

some british elitist douchebags thought it was morrally correct to exaggerate figures (noble lie), their emails were leaked and millions of extra lives will be lost as a result.

Only an idiot thinks we should gamble the entire future of humanity on the chance that CO2 levels have no effect on climate.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:17:00 2011 No.2936933

>>2936824
>Perhaps you could explain it to me.
I'd be happy to. In serveral thousand years we will be expecting the next ice age, which will eliminate likely 99% of the human population and perhaps human civilization with it.

Reduced albedo means that albedo isn't increasing. When albedo starts increasing, that's when things are getting "bad"... "scientifically".

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:17:00 2011 No.2936937

>>2936888
If you just LOOK at the data, including graphs you yourself have posted, you see that the IPCC model is not predictive. This is not a mere assertion, it's an exhortation to open your eyes.

Emphasis on the dubiousness of these models is justified because... it's the crux of the issue. Despite how widely anti-AGW people are misrepresented, most of us agree with the published climate data (certainly the present climate data, but also the palaeo-climate data with some minor reservations). The critical issue is causation and it sinks or swims with these very models.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Sat Apr 23 15:17:00 2011 No.2936938 >>2936910 But methane has a short lifespan. It then breaks down into co2

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:21:00 2011 No.2936960

>>2936910

So you agree with the statement. Moving on.

A satellites have measured an increase in outgoing longwave radiation, consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Ground instruments have measured an increase in downward longwave radiation, also consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Volcanoes have a net cooling effect on the climate. They emit 100 times less CO2 than total anthropogenic emissions, and stratospheric sulfate particles reflect incoming shortwave radiation. Thus, Volcanoes are a negative forcing, and the absence of eruptions will warm the climate. There have not been a decrease in the number of large volcanic eruptions, so that has not caused global warming.

We can measure solar irradiation directly. It has not been changed significantly during the period of modern global warming, so it has not caused global warming.

Cosmic rays: same deal.

Continental drift, rock weathering, and Milankovitch cycles: these occur on a timescale of thousands or millions of years, and thus they are too slow to contribute to global warming on a multi-decadal scale.

Do you agree with these statements?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:24:00 2011 No.2936993

>>2936933

>I'd be happy to. In serveral thousand years we will be expecting the next ice age,

[citation needed]

>which will eliminate likely 99% of the human population and perhaps human civilization with it.

[citation needed]

Also please tell me what is good or bad, scientifically, about what you're saying

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:28:00 2011 No.2937029

>>2936960
The effect of volcanoes is more complex and more poorly understood than you represent. Particles do have a cooling effect, but their persistence is widely variable. It depends in part on the force of the eruption and how far they are projected into the atmosphere. There are several different processes that contribute to their elimination, and these are as variable as the weather (they can rain out, for one).

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:44:00 2011 No.2937129

>>2936960
Furthermore, when you say solar output and cosmic rays "have not changed significantly" that's an over-simplification. It may well be that their averages have not changed significantly, but they are themselves quite variable. It may be that there are influences of the sun or of cosmic rays that are not fully captured by averaging over long time-spans. Chaotic processes sometimes exhibit "jumpy" or near-discontinuous behaviour where once a certain threshold is crossed, the value (temperature) moves rapidly to some new level of relative stability. I do not *know* that climate behaves this way, but it well could exhibit path-dependence and regions of relative stability / instability.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:52:00 2011 No.2937167

>>2937029

Volcanoes are moderately well-understood, and can can accurately determine their contribution to radiative forcing. Either way, there has not been a drastic change in the frequency of eruptions.

By contrast, we know very precisely the physical properties of CO2, from laboratory experiments, from satellites, and from ground instruments, and all are strongly consistent with the physics basis. We know that CO2 and methane are by far the strongest contributors to global warming.

I want to point out to you some literature that you might find useful.

Youtube tier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

High school/first-year undergrad non-science major tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?px169hvqe603c4o (Houghton)

http://www.mediafire.com/?f9e48o0idwhnyql (Pittock)

Non-science major with math tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?a31tiy7cfy2sgde (Archer. Also good for establishing the fundamental principles of atmospheric physics and how we know global warming is happening.)

http://www.mediafire.com/?26hacfo80dbyvbo (Ahrens. Your basic first year meteorology textbook)

IPCC tier (all 2500+ pages of it in pdf form, if you don't want to use their website):

http://www.mediafire.com/?y6nvtd8i1ym8gp2 (Working Group I. Look at Chapter 9 for an explanation of how we know humanity is causing global warming)

http://www.mediafire.com/?37d61wm7kj3wvj0 (Working Group II)

http://www.mediafire.com/?5dfr9865vbcofu4 (Working Group III)

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:53:00 2011 No.2937175

>>2937167

Science major tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?5dfr9865vbcofu4 (Andrews)

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19 (Marshall and Plumb. The textbook for the MIT OpenCourseWare Intro to Climatology course)

http://www.mediafire.com/?l9tdc44d9j4ut2m (Vallis)

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19 (Pierrehumbert. Good shit.)

Older foundational textbook to supplement the above textbooks tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?l9tdc44d9j4ut2m

http://www.mediafire.com/?l9tdc44d9j4ut2m

I'm actually a scientist tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?u63thkac04wvd3s

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 15:59:00 2011 No.2937215

>>2937167
The impact of volcanic eruptions cannot be neatly summarized by their overall frequency and there have been no verifiable predictions of their contribution. You seem to have glossed over the issue in my post, an aspect of volcanoes that is not captured by "how many" or "how many, reaching a certain level of forcefulness."

I fear I must persist with this issue, because you're attempting a process of elimination that leaves anthropogenic CO2 as the only feasible culprit. To do that, you have to, you know, actually eliminate the other possibilities.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:00:00 2011 No.2937225

>>2937175

Agriculture tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?w8ick6o3oqcbd3e

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab (Chapter 17. This textbook is also very good, suitable for lay audiences, and their authors are not closely associated with the IPCC. This is a good book if you're suspicious of the IPCC for whatever reason and want a more updated alternative perspective)

Economics tier:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

http://www.mediafire.com/?1cj60wckqejmpi7

http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/11501IIED.pdf

NIGHTMARE tier:

http://www.mediafire.com/?qekj9270imf90oo (lol you thought the IPCC was "alarmist")

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html

Fixing things tier:

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote

http://www.capanddividend.org/

Also see WGIII from the IPCC

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:05:00 2011 No.2937246

>>2937225
>lol you thought the IPCC was "alarmist"

Whether or not they're alarmist has nothing to do with the issue of anthropogenic CO2. It could be that IPCC is completely underestimating the extent of climate change, that there will be enormous disastrous consequences, and yet anthropogenic CO2 is still not an important causal contributor.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:10:00 2011 No.2937276
File: 78 KB, 449x365, temp_co2_tsi_stacked.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2937215

On the contrary, it's not the mere "process of elimination." How do we know it's greenhouse gases causing global warming? For one, the measurements of outgoing longwave and downward longwave radiation, which provides direct experimental evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. The other is the isotopic ratios of atmospheric CO2, which point to anthropogenic origin. The stratosphere is cooling, the tropopause is rising, and the ionosphere is expanding. All these are consistent with an increased greenhouse effect and inconsistent with solar or cosmic forcings.

Then after that, we take a look at the other possible forcings, and attempt to quantify them. This has been exhaustively looked at by scientists, and we haven't found anything that could match the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases that could adequately explain modern global warming.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:14:00 2011 No.2937296

I'm aghast at the people who think climate change can actually imperil civilization. It's just not that hard to use "other means" (that is, other than emissions reduction) to cool the climate if it becomes a true emergency. It's important to think about, because it has bearing on the balance of risks that AGW supporters always cite in their favour.

If worse comes to worse, I think we would opt for some kind of technological solution possibly involving artificial aerosols rather than actually bake in our own pudding. It's just ridiculous to contemplate that we'd sit by and allow climate change to work our undoing.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:23:00 2011 No.2937326

>>2937276
Volcanoes are a natural phenomenon that contributes to the greenhouse effect. Once again, you've not actually addressed the issue. "This has been exhaustively looked at by scientists" but statements like these are never backed up with actual science. That's what I mean when I say that there's very little science published on the matter that I actually disagree with. It's not the science, it's the mere assertions of scientific organizations (who would have more credibility if they did the science, but without it they're no more trustworthy than my grandma) politicians and advocacy organizations like IPCC that are so disagreeable. Without those assertions, there is no case for AGW. It doesn't get past the "A" and no number of statements that "There is consensus" and "It is beyond dispute" will substitute for proof.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:24:00 2011 No.2937333

>>2937296

The problem with SRM-type geoengineering is that whatever CO2 is in the atmosphere now will remain for at least a hundred thousand years, so you'll have to inject those sulphates indefinitely without pause throughout the entire time as CO2 is very slowly removed from the atmosphere. That means no big wars, no social disruption, and no political disagreements that could spell the end of the SRM program. It also does nothing about ocean acidification, although I guess if you care nothing about fisheries, marine tourism, scientific research, or silly things like "instrinsic value" and "lolecosystemintegrity" then I guess it's no biggie.

Either way, worst-case scenario we will probably have no choice but to use SRM to take care of shit

Some articles:

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5140

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:32:00 2011 No.2937370

>>2937326

>Volcanoes are a natural phenomenon that contributes to the greenhouse effect.

No, it releases very little CO2 compared to anthropogenic activity, and it has a net cooling effect from sulfate emissions. We've covered this.

I'll quantify it for you: according to Morner and Etiope 2002 and Kerrick 2001, a maximum of 319 megatons of CO2 is emitted annually. By contrast, anthropogenic emissions are 29 gigatons per year, two orders of magnitude higher than volcanic emissions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-45C1SPR-5&_user=10&_cover
Date=06%2F30%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_sort=d&vi
ew=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f030dad62bb657f59e
5c62ec52a62f13

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2001RG000105.shtml

You are complaining that I'm only arguing from authority. But you have completely ignored my explanation of how we know CO2 is a major contributor to the total anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Have you looked at the books I've posted? Chapter 9 of the IPCC WGI and the first 5 chapters of Letcher's textbook explain it too. What is it that you want? I can cite the original research if secondary material is too much of an argument from authority for you.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:32:00 2011 No.2937372

>>2937333
"A hundred thousand years" is an exaggeration, and the schedule is not so rigid that there could be no year or even decade long disruptions in the service as long as it was kept up in the long run.

All this is a worst-case scenerio, and I mentioned synthetic aerosols rather than sulfates because they have better persistence characteristics and could be deployed, for instance, if it were determined that the required "upkeep" might not be possible.

In any case, catastrophic effects for all of humanity are extremely unlikely, *even if the worst case materializes.* This does in fact factor into the risk analysis of whether or not we should embark on very costly programs of emissions reduction without solid evidence.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:39:00 2011 No.2937412

>>2937372

Even under the assumption that catastrophe is impossible, the economic costs of global warming will be likely much higher than the economic costs of mitigation. The Stern Review, for example, states that the economic impacts could be higher than 20% of GDP per year, indefinitely, by the year 2100. The Stern Review was also working with some pretty optimistic assumptions. By contrast, the absolute highest estimate for the GDP cost of mitigation is 3 or 4 per cent.

Also see the IIED report linked above

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:41:00 2011 No.2937423

>>2937370
>But you have completely ignored my explanation of how we know CO2 is a major contributor to the total anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
You have not explained how we know. You have not provided any evidence that would epistemologically qualify us to claim knowledge.

>Have you looked at the books I've posted?
No, I must confess I have not looked at the over 3000 pages of shit you've posted for the purposes of an image-board argument.

I would like to emphasize that you have *still* not addressed my concern about volcanoes, except by assertions. You cite evidence about cumulative volcanic CO2 emissions, which I credit, but it's not germane. Then you just assert that the impact of volcanoes has been quantified, even though I have advanced specific concerns why this over-simplified quantification is likely to be inaccurate. Once again, the problem is not in the evidence that exists but the putative evidence that "exists" just because authorities claim it does.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:45:00 2011 No.2937453
File: 34 KB, 600x809, Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2937372

>"A hundred thousand years" is an exaggeration

Lol no it isn't

The rate at which excess CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere is limited by the rate at which rock weathering can absorb it. These are not very fast processes, otherwise we wouldn't have a problem with global warming to begin with.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2005/2004JC002625.shtml

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:53:00 2011 No.2937505

>>2937453
We were talking about a (hypothetical) catastrophic phase. In that case, the regime at the far left of the graph, with the rapid initial decrease, would be the relevant portion for mitigating against an extreme eventuality. You don't have to chase every last bit of CO2 out to stop an "everyone dies" scenario of global mayhem. I should hope that even alarmists can agree that this is true.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:55:00 2011 No.2937516

>>2937423

>You have not explained how we know.

Uh, please allow me to quote myself

>Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, based on what I've just told you? And if you increase the concentration of CO2, should that not mean the surface of the Earth will warm?

I recall that you agreed with this statement. Then:

>On the contrary, it's not the mere "process of elimination." How do we know it's greenhouse gases causing global warming? For one, the measurements of outgoing longwave and downward longwave radiation, which provides direct experimental evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. The other is the isotopic ratios of atmospheric CO2, which point to anthropogenic origin. The stratosphere is cooling, the tropopause is rising, and the ionosphere is expanding. All these are consistent with an increased greenhouse effect and inconsistent with solar or cosmic forcings.

Are you ignoring that? Or did you not understand it? I can reword or expand on it if you found it confusing, or I could provide a primary scientific source for each claim if you think I'm bullshitting you.

>No, I must confess I have not looked at the over 3000 pages of shit you've posted for the purposes of an image-board argument.

More liek 100,000 pages

Anyway, of course I didn't ask you to read every single thing I posted. I posted a variety of sources because I can't be sure of your level of expertise, so it's arranged from easy high school shit to graduate school level stuff. I also pointed out that Chapter 9 in IPCC WG1 and the first few chapters of Letcher's book explain the attribution of global warming quite well. Please have a glance. If THAT is also too long for you, I'm afraid I can't really help, because if I posted a SkepticalScience link I'm thinking you'd dismiss it out-of-hand

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:56:00 2011 No.2937518

>>2937516

>Once again, the problem is not in the evidence that exists but the putative evidence that "exists" just because authorities claim it does.

We have determined that volcanoes emit approximately 100 times less CO2 than humans do. We know that volcanoes cool the Earth, because when volcanoes erupt, satellites detect a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and surface temperature decreases.

Why are you so hung up on volcanoes anyway? Can you explain to me how volcanoes have been the primary contributor to modern global warming, or how the methodologies of the authors I've cited are fatally flawed?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 16:59:00 2011 No.2937537

>>2937516
I responded to each of those posts that you made in turn. I am not going to revisit those posts, because it would be tedious and repetitious. I also find it difficult to engage with someone who pretends that I never offered responses when I have.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:02:00 2011 No.2937565

>>2937505

Those scenarios are based on immediate 100% cessation of all anthropogenic CO2 emission. Needless to say, it's not very likely.

The possibility of catastrophe lies in the runaway feedback effects: ice sheet collapse, methane outgassing, clathrate disintegration, ocean CO2 saturation, extremely large wildfires, etc. By "runaway" I don't mean Venus-levels of warming, but that even stopping CO2 emissions completely, falling albedo and increasing "natural" greenhouse gas emissions would continue to warm the planet, and CO2 outgassing from the ocean would continue on its own.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:03:00 2011 No.2937571

>>2937518

>We have determined that volcanoes emit approximately 100 times less CO2 than humans do.

...only very recently. This is becoming quite similar to arguing with a recording. I said *from the beginning* that I grant the CO2 emission of volcanoes. That is *not* the issue I have. How many times are you going to make me repeat myself?

>We know that volcanoes cool the Earth, because when volcanoes erupt, satellites detect a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and surface temperature decreases.

That is nice. That was actually part of *my* argument. I'm glad to see it's in good standing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:06:00 2011 No.2937581 >>2937565 It's possible to overturn any possible amount of feedback from temperature increases to the extent of inducing a nuclear winter with less than $1 billion dollars in total investment. The magnitude of feedback is therefore nearly irrelevant.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:07:00 2011 No.2937588

>>2937537

>because it would be tedious and repetitious

>VOLCANOES VOLCANOES VOLCANOES VOLCANOES VOLCANOES VOLCANOES CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING VOLCANOES VOLCANOES VOLCANOES

Pot calling the kettle black I see

>I also find it difficult to engage with someone who pretends that I never offered responses when I have.

When did you respond to my statement of the scientific evidence we have for anthropogenic contribution of greenhouse gases to an enhanced greenhouse effect? Like, you could link the post, or copy-and-paste it. Because I really don't fucking see it anywhere.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:11:00 2011 No.2937608

>>2937571

>That is *not* the issue I have. How many times are you going to make me repeat myself?

What IS the issue?

Better yet, tell me this:

HOW DO VOLCANOES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT VOLCANOES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

CAN YOU PROVIDE PRIMARY SOURCES, PREFERABLY PEER-REVIEWED, THAT BACKS UP THIS EVIDENCE?

Can you answer these simple questions?

>That was actually part of *my* argument.

So you recognize that volcanoes are a net negative impact on climate? Jesus shit you are obtuse as fuck

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:12:00 2011 No.2937622

>>2937588

See
>>2937326
>>2937215
>>2937029
>>2937129

You have offered some evidence of increased greenhouse effect, which I partially credit. You have not ruled out natural causes of this effect, hence my continual harping about VOLCANOES. I will not accept any attribution of this detected greenhouse enhancement without an adequate treatment of volcanoes.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:18:00 2011 No.2937635

>>2937622

Holy fuck

Either you're the troll of the century or irreparably retarded

Apparently, you want me to hold your hand through each explanation of why solar irradiance volcanoes, etc. separately do not cause global warming. I want to cite the literature and leave you to read it, but then you'll just HERP DERP ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY

It's also funny that you refuse to provide any sources whatsoever for your own arguments, and you do not have to explain how volcanoes or solar irradiance causes global warming. You just have to suggest the possibility. It's like you're really an "intelligent design proponent"

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:18:00 2011 No.2937636

>>2937608

>HOW DO VOLCANOES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

They don't? I never claimed that volcanoes cause global warming. To all appearances we are in agreement that eruptions have a net negative impact on temperature.

Changes in patters of volcanic activity can have an impact in either direction. If it's warmer, perhaps this would suggest less activity or less of the activities that have the largest cooling consequence. I don't think the accounting for volcanoes has been rigorous enough because merely counting them or sorting them into broad categories may be insufficient due to qualitative differences.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:21:00 2011 No.2937653

>>2937636

>To all appearances we are in agreement that eruptions have a net negative impact on temperature.

Okay.

But what you say next makes no sense at all:

>due to qualitative differences.

WHAT QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES?

And how could these qualitative differences disprove anthropogenic forcing of global warming?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:24:00 2011 No.2937673

>>2937635
>>2937653

In both these posts you shift the burden of proof, requiring that I must "disprove" anthropogenic global warming rather than that you must prove it through adequate evidence accounting for possible alternatives. I feel sorry for you in a way, because the research that you would require *does not exist.* For this reason, you're unfortunately reduced to a lot of prevaricating and other tactics such as name calling.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:25:00 2011 No.2937677

>>2937581

>The magnitude of feedback is therefore nearly irrelevant.

Pretty sure at one point blotting out the Sun could maybe have some negative consequences

You're getting into a situation with extremely high CO2 levels, no life in the oceans, and low sunlight. This might be bad in terms of food production.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:27:00 2011 No.2937695

>>2937673

>the research that you would require *does not exist.*

Of course it does. Type "volcanoes+climate+forcing" into Google Scholar and you get plenty of research. But somehow you'll still claim that it actually doesn't exist

>other tactics such as name calling.

I'm calling you names because you're extremely frustrating

Actually I'm pretty sure we're the only people left in this thread because you've made it so fucking annoying to read. So I will not respond to any further posts, because it's clear you do not respond to sources and you do not respond to evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:28:00 2011 No.2937701 >>2937677 The thing about feedback is that you only have to choke it at the beginning and the process is put back to its slow phase and prevented from taking off. That's the very nature of feedback.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:31:00 2011 No.2937714

>>2937701

That doesn't seem to be the case, if deforestation and fossil fuel emissions continue unabated, then you will need more and more SRM to counter the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases. So it would make sense to use SRM as a stopgap measure to buy time to transition from the fossil fuel-intensive economy. But not as a permanent solution.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:34:00 2011 No.2937728 >>2935862 Oh look, an idiot that doesn't understand that global warming is inaccurate, and what people really mean is global climate change, and that all kinds of weather are going to get more and more extreme in the future

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:36:00 2011 No.2937744

>>2937695
Yep, we've arrived at the "use Google" phase. Of course I could never "use Google" in such a verifiable way as to demonstrate that I found no such studies. There aren't any. Of course, there are plenty of hits. There are *no* studies of the specific aspects of volcanic eruptions that I'm talking about. There's no detailed survey of the way particulates are introduced into the atmosphere by particular eruptions, for all the relevant eruptions. Needless to say, I have reason to suspect that there's tremendous variability.

We both seem to agree that volcanoes contribute a significant cooling influence. Right. Next, impact of volcanic activity needs to be eliminated as a source of the observed change in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes come in many varieties. It's just not adequate to summarize their impact in a cursory way that doesn't treat the specific characteristics and circumstances of their emission.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:36:00 2011 No.2937748 >>2937728 That guys is a troll from /new/, his trademark is posting that one pic of Sean Hannity looking smug

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:45:00 2011 No.2937797
File: 74 KB, 400x313, hannity2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2937748
The funny thing is I used to get bigger shitstorms with this on /new/ than on /sci/. Say what you will about the stormfags, it was a fun place.

4ch0n's /new/ is total shit now, nothing but jew jew jew herpaderp. LIke they're trying to prove moot's point.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:49:00 2011 No.2937827

>>2937797

Tru dat, although it's hilarious how far they can go to blaming Jews about EVERYTHING

>Hollywood makes shit movies

THE JEWS ARE BEHIND IT ALL

>I can't get a sexy blonde girlfriend

THE JEWS ARE BEHIND IT ALL

>I was denied a loan

THE JEWS ARE BEHIND IT ALL

>The Holocaust

DIE JUDEN SIND DAHINTER

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:50:00 2011 No.2937835 Because oil companies are making way too much money these days

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:53:00 2011 No.2937858

>>2937744

>There's no detailed survey of the way particulates are introduced into the atmosphere by particular eruptions

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/259/5100/1411.short

http://jack.pixe.lth.se/kfgu/KOO090_FKF075/Artiklar/P05.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509166

Herp-a-derp derp

>Volcanoes come in many varieties

DERP DERP MY BRAIN IS LEAKING OUT OF MY EARS HALP

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 17:59:57 2011 No.2937888 [DELETED]

>>2937827

>Hollywood makes shit movies
Most of Hollywood's directors and actors are filthy k i k e s.

>I can't get a sexy blonde girlfriend
Filthy k i k e s are to blame for Western people's physical decadence with their brainwashing and shitty food, thus reducing the healthy, good-looking males to the third.
>I was denied a loan.
Filthy k i k e s fucked economy up, putting the working class into struggle

>The Holocaust
Filthy k i k e s' biggest lie and cover up for their shit.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:03:00 2011 No.2937906

>>2937888

See what I mean?

It ain't the rich gentile motherfuckers who are responsible for the recession. It wasn't my lack of attractive qualities that kept away the girls. It wasn't the physical evidence for the Holocaust that leads us to know that the Holocaust happened. Nope. Gotta be Jews

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:03:00 2011 No.2937908

>>2937858
You're quoting out of context. I was saying that we would need this kind of data for *every eruption* due to individual differences among them. It's good that Pinatubo was well-studied, but it was also relatively remarkable and attracted a great deal of attention.

>>Volcanoes come in many varieties

>DERP DERP MY BRAIN IS LEAKING OUT OF MY EARS HALP

Oh, it's that game where I makes an entirely reasonable statement and you pretend it's the most retarded thing you ever heard. Are you really disputing that there are different kinds of volcanoes?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Types_of_volcanic_eruptions

OH NO, WIKIPEDIA! THERE'S YET MORE PROOF I MUST BE AN IDIOT.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:06:00 2011 No.2937925

>>2937908

Herp a derp-a-derp, I love accusing people of reading things out of context, then reading things out of context

Derp derp, obviously that guy meant that different types of volcanoes DON'T EXIST and he's actually really dumb herp. I smart!

But I know for a fact, without knowing any facts, that different types of volcanoes cause different types of something. Therefore global warming isn't caused by man! HUUUUUURR

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:08:00 2011 No.2937932 >>2937908 Wait, you're saying that it's impossible for us to know that man causes global warming, because we don't examine <span class="math">every~single[/spoiler] volcanic eruption in great detail? Wat

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:18:00 2011 No.2937999

>>2937925
Your posts are so full of manneristic piffle and failed attempts to be funny that I can barely tell what you're saying.

>>2937932
I think an individual account needs to be given for the "large" ones, for the period under examination (and not just the ones that kill a lot of people and get a lot of media) and these need to be aggregated to assess overall volcanic impact without simplifying it to one or a couple scalar terms. I don't see how this is so unreasonable a demand in the context. Nobody doubts that volcanoes *do* have an impact on earth's climate. How could we assess the role of anthropogenic CO2 without exploring their impact? Some data may exist that hasn't even been incorporated into any model, at least without undue simplification that destroys important differences between eruptions.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:28:00 2011 No.2938069
File: 273 KB, 700x619, figure-6-14-l.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2937999

So, until a really sexy model comes along that incorporates all these.... volcanic differences comes along, you're saying that it's impossible to determine whether or not human beings cause global warming? Even though current models take volcanic forcings into account, these models just aren't good enough because they don't distinguish between different <span class="math">kinds[/spoiler] of eruptions?

So if you don't mind me asking, how would taking different eruption types into account help us determine whether or not man is causing global warming? And are you saying all the physics and shit establishing the power of greenhouse gas forcing is irrelevant until we have really nice and perfect GCMs?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:34:00 2011 No.2938098

>>2938069
Wow, physics. That sure sounds authoritative. It is, for the proposition that, for instance, greenhouse gasses exist. Of course, it's the magnitude of the contribution of CO2 that's important. I don't know how you'd expect to find that without a good model. Hand-waving doesn't count.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:38:00 2011 No.2938120

>>2938069
Of course, the models are also "not good enough" because they fail the test of productiveness. If they did make good predictions, I'm sure that would excuse a multitude of shortcomings. It would suggest those phenomena don't play an important role, if the model worked without them.

Unfortunately, the climate models are still being "refined" which is code for lots of arbitrary trial-and-error tweaking after the data that comes along falls well outside the range of what the models predict.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:38:00 2011 No.2938123

>>2936404
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_oil_spill

derp because pollution is in no way unhealthy for us at all. Im sure as this smog in the air, the tiny particles of plastic and the dispersant/oil in my fish are going to be good for me.
Derp and its not like we don't depend on the natural environment to provide stuff for us. what is overfishing. fish stocks have never collapsed.
and its not like forests dont provide vital services for us like climate moderation, soil retention and nutrient cycling.
nope, fuck the environment,

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 18:57:00 2011 No.2938208 So...who won?

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 19:33:00 2011 No.2938384
File: 60 KB, 571x617, ipccar4faq21fig2lgpj9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2938098

>Wow, physics. That sure sounds authoritative.

Wart

Of course physics is authoritative. Increase CO2, shit warms up. This is pretty clear and unambiguous. Do you prefer youtube videos or scientific papers? I'll include both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v41/i3/p291_1

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-59-3-267

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X19-4HD8DMJ-1&_user=10&_rdoc=
1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=0&_userid=10&md5=6db8f86f836c8d4b4fc2cb20570c658f

In b4 "experiments don't count" for whatever reason

>Of course, it's the magnitude of the contribution of CO2 that's important

What, you think scientists have never tried to quantify it?

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.168.831&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

In b4 "all these papers are bullshit"

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 19:37:00 2011 No.2938405

>>2938120

The models are pretty realistic brah, they accurately backcast past temperatures and even their predictive element has been shown to be accurate over the past 10 years since the SRES models were published

How much more realistic do you want it to be? Should it model every dude's wagging penis disrupting wind currents?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 19:40:00 2011 No.2938419 >>2938384 Here is a blog posting explaining Schmidt's 2010 paper for an easier read http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/adding-up-the-greenhouse-effect-attributing-the-contribu tions/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 20:06:00 2011 No.2938575 mfw denialists on my /sci/. when the fuck did this happen? Isn't this supposed to be the science board?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 20:15:00 2011 No.2938646 >>2938575 Denialists have ALWAYS been on /sci/ ever since it was created It's summer so the kids are out of school

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 20:35:00 2011 No.2938753

There's something wrong with objectivity when scientific debate is argued by consensus. It's like saying the nuclear atomic model is true because most scientists agree. No scientist legitimately argues this way. They instead say it's true because they can objectively confirm it, they can cite experiments and observations, and it's our best understanding given our current knowledge. A consensus requires no acknowledgement, because the findings that form it are compelling enough.

It's time to question scientific objectivity when a consensus is raised at all, because it's nearly always an effort to steer opinion by calling it scientific without resorting to actual science. Arguing this way suggests uncompelling findings.

Consensuses have delayed and steered us wrong before, often in prematurely stopping debate:
*continental drift
*symbiogenesis
*punctuated equilibria
*prions
*stomach ulcer causing bacteria

I'm inclined to accept AGW because we dump massive amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide does retain heat. Those considerations alone make it entirely plausible. However, confounding variables detract from the naive conclusion without concrete findings. I've yet to see clear, understandable science to convincingly settle the matter. All the science I've seen is unclear or looks obfuscated.

Until someone competent/lucid enough comes along to break it down, I don't know what to believe. This is not arrogance. It's an unwillingness to accept undue faith in an enterprise that rejects it.

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 20:42:00 2011 No.2938811

>>2938753

An imageboard is probably not the best place to learn something like this

There's two educational blogs on the matter:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/

And

http://scienceofdoom.com/

The latter one is run by a "skeptic" who doesn't the impacts of global warming will be that bad, but accepts the scientific basis for global warming. Both are quite good at explaining science

Otherwise there's the IPCC, and earlier in the thread there's a bunch of posts linking to e-textbooks

Anonymous Sat Apr 23 20:53:00 2011 No.2938896

>>2938811

I'll re-link the best books here, in order from the most basic to advanced:

David Archer's Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast.

http://www.mediafire.com/?a31tiy7cfy2sgde
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/

Letcher's (ed.) Climate Change: Observed Impacts on Planet Earth.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1wozy30z8co00ab

Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate.

http://www.mediafire.com/?eenoyepca1pacth

Marshall and Plumb's Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics.

http://www.mediafire.com/?b3c7i6vh0kc8w19
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-003-atmosphere-ocean-and-clim
ate-dynamics-fall-2008/

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 21:35:00 2011 No.2939198 lol u nubs If 100 sheep believe that i am god, and only 1 sheep thinks im just a guy, how important is it what a fucking sheep thinks? ITT: describes everyone in this thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 23 21:38:00 2011 No.2939217 >>2938811 That was good. For the first time I saw someone spell out a model in terms of laws in textbook physics. Exactly what I was looking for.

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