Is the climate change we are going through caused by humans?

File: 397 KB, 767x743, 1423864628024.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 26 22:00:49 2015 No.7288716 [Reply] [Original]

Is the climate change we are going through caused by humans?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 22:12:08 2015 No.7288738 Unfortunately humans are naturally religious and not especially smart. Even if the answer was obvious we still wouldn't agree...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 22:41:54 2015 No.7288798 Sure there are many natural causes for climate change, however in the past 200 years climate change has increased drastically. Humans are really the only explanation.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 01:33:27 2015 No.7289033 >>7288716 Climate change is a natural process, we're just accelerating it by thousands of years

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 01:36:44 2015 No.7289036 Talking about climate change is a really good way to bum out a bunch of science nerds.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 01:45:26 2015 No.7289039 >>7289036 I took a class on climate change. My faith in humanity's ability to solve its problems is gone now.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 01:58:56 2015 No.7289058 all that carbon we're releasing come from somewhere, right? let's pretend that North Europeans and Canadians are gonna die out due to some warming dude this is a religion, not science

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:01:49 2015 No.7289061 >>7289058 I don't understand anything about what the fuck you just said.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:02:42 2015 No.7289064 >>7289061 are you a Social Justice Warrior?

Anonymous Wed May 27 02:04:26 2015 No.7289066

>>7289058
Yep. It's the rich countries which are able to act to mitigate climate change and the poor ones which suffer for it. Acting to stop climate change is something only the altruistic will do. Add that to the list of reasons why humanity is fucked.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:04:54 2015 No.7289068 >>7289064 No. You just fail at English.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:08:06 2015 No.7289073 >>7289066 Apart from China and India being the largest producers of CO2

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:08:26 2015 No.7289074 >>7289068 I know I made a typo but make an effort, mongol

Anonymous Wed May 27 02:16:13 2015 No.7289084

>>7289073
The second world is pretty developed these days. I was thinking of the third world. China wouldn't have much trouble with temperature increases either, but india is predicted to have trouble with their dependence on their monsoons for agriculture. The developing countries usually ask the developed countries for monetary compensation for slowing down their development to avoid climate change in any negotiations.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:18:45 2015 No.7289086 >>7289058 Can you communicate your ideas in coherent sentences please?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:20:34 2015 No.7289088 >>7288716 yes. it is undeniable

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:20:47 2015 No.7289089 >>7289086 mongol, please, we've already discussed your limitations >>7289074

Anonymous Wed May 27 02:26:09 2015 No.7289093

>>7289089
Actually, you know what? You're right, you're perfectly right. That carbon had to come from somewhere right? Where is it all going now?

I can see you winning Nobel prizes for being able to disprove climate change.

You're gonna be 420blazinit and dicking hot bitches once you win your Nobel Dr. Anon!

Anonymous Wed May 27 02:26:47 2015 No.7289094
File: 23 KB, 600x450, 1431998369178.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I keep saying it's because of the thousands of years of shitty farming and land construction practices.

Tear down and revamp entire ecosystems just so we can have more food and area to live in.

It's only been in past century have we started to actually give a damn about the long term effects of our actions. Before that it was really more an issue of how long can we stretch out the usefulness of any given resource.

And even then in only the last half of this millennia did we pay attention to the finer details of that at all. So who the fuck knows how much damage we've caused because we didn't have the technology or understanding to care about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:29:27 2015 No.7289097 >>7289093 >Where is it all going now? where it fucking came from, dumbass plants thrive on it, fuck the propaganda

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:30:44 2015 No.7289098 >>7289097 side-effect: will make much of scandinavia and north america livable OMfG!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:32:41 2015 No.7289099 >>7289098 It's a CIA plot to keep Putin down with his Siberia frozen

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 02:34:29 2015 No.7289101 File: 641 KB, 620x622, lolbaitfag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289097

Anonymous Wed May 27 02:56:57 2015 No.7289117
File: 10 KB, 285x262, cheshire-cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7288716
Does anybody know whether the IPCC models like SG53 include the effect of fluctuating solar radiation cycles?
I am not saying that the vast bulk of the increase in global temperature is not being caused by human activity, all I'm saying is that until the IPCC starts to include the effect of solar radiation variability, their predictions and specifically their short term predictions are going to be quite shitty.
So does anyone know?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 11:56:51 2015 No.7289668 >>7289117 The models which the IPCC pools together are sort of all over the place in terms of complexity. Almost all of them probably use at least a simple model of the effect of solar variability since it's easy to do.

Anonymous Wed May 27 12:12:42 2015 No.7289690

Maybe. If at all, humana World only be influencing it by an extremely insignificant amount. There has been no significant change in temperature for about 17 years, even though we are using fossil fuels more than ever. The ice caps have grown. Honestly, all that "we will be dead in 30 years if everybody doesn't switch to alternative power sources" is just a fear mongering marketing campaign for some "green" companies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for alternative energy resources. We only have a limited amount of oil. Solar power is wonderful, and nuclear fusion would be great. The earth goes through small fluctuations, and overall, we can't really do to I much damage to it other than nukes.

Anonymous Wed May 27 14:12:51 2015 No.7289884

>Anons please notice that around 10 years ago there was a movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and at this time people were saying we are going to freeze to death because of humans and the whole BS...
>Now we are going to burn alive and drown under the melting icecaps...
>Global warming is based on stats of a a few years..
>(Also a nice qoute: "There are lies, then there are bigger lies and then there are statistics."
>People haven't noticed but the huge "Eco friendly" marketing skeem is disturbing...

>THE ANSWER: We are simply coming out an iceage and shit is getting warmer but its not that big of a deal...

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 14:38:12 2015 No.7289938 >>7289884 No.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 14:39:48 2015 No.7289941 >>7289938 i agree to disagree

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 14:44:06 2015 No.7289948 >>7289884 >skeem Also, learn how to type without greentext.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 14:44:55 2015 No.7289949 >>7289094 Fucking up whole ecosystems isn't the same as changing the composition of the atmosphere, not even close.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 14:52:59 2015 No.7289961 File: 62 KB, 460x505, IMG_2407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289948 welcome to the internet were grammar nazis should go get there PHD in english poetry and not come bak to 4chan

Anonymous Wed May 27 14:54:05 2015 No.7289962

>>7289884
>Anons please notice that around 10 years ago there was a movie "The Day After Tomorrow"

The scientific community does not track Hollywood, science fiction, urban myths and legends, and so forth.

>>7289690
>Honestly, all that "we will be dead in 30 years if everybody doesn't switch to alternative power sources" is just a fear mongering marketing campaign for some "green" companies.

Really? Name one.

>>7289668
>Almost all of them probably

stopped reading

>>7289117
>Does anybody know whether the IPCC models like SG53 include the effect of fluctuating solar radiation cycles?

Google it shithead

Anonymous Wed May 27 15:01:05 2015 No.7289970
File: 1.10 MB, 250x333, gWngBjI.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7289962
>Plz notice that the premise of my statement, that its all b S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
educate yourself and stop being a pawn of elite world. at least if you wont take action educate yourself and read something else other than CNN and FOX

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 15:08:55 2015 No.7289981 >>7289884 Moron. TDAT was a disaster which occurred as a result of a geomagnetic polar shift which was a naturally occurring phenomenon in the canon of the film.

Anonymous Wed May 27 15:18:31 2015 No.7289992

Fagget you still don't get his point
What he's saying is that 10 years ago the plan of fear they were trying to instil in the environmentally friendly freaks was the earth was getting colder and colder...
Just get the idea from what he was saying it's not like he has to spoon feed you the idea does he...
Also did you finish your ENG101-102, bcs in those courses you learn how to find themes and main ideas In what pple are saying. Seems like you haven't so you should take these courses

Anonymous Wed May 27 15:21:16 2015 No.7289995

>>7289962
From ar5 wg1 chapter 9 (which is on the evaluation of climate models by attempting to reconstruct past climate behavior)

>For the natural forcings a recommended monthly averaged total solar
>irradiance time series was given, but there was no recommended treatment
>of volcanic forcing. Both integrated solar irradiance and its spectrum
>were available, but not all CMIP5 models used the spectral data.

So apparently none of the models were so shitty they didn't incorporate solar irradiance changes.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 15:24:06 2015 No.7290001 >>7289981 You mean geographic pole shift, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis Geomagnetic reversal would hardly affect climate.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:05:13 2015 No.7290643 No point worrying about climate change since we're already past the point of doing anything about it. If you're concerned the only thing you can do is to not procreate.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:22:20 2015 No.7290674 >climate change is a conspiracy Why do people trust oil companies more than scientists?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:27:32 2015 No.7290683 >>7290674 because the scientists are bankrolled by the government, and the government has a vested interest that the population believes in climate change because it can use it as an excuse to spend more money and thus gain more power. whew

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:28:36 2015 No.7290684 you guys should read this http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:29:15 2015 No.7290685

>>7290674
People love conspiracy theories, and everyone knows that the oil companies don't have their best interests in mind. Also most people don't look into the topic much and distrust scientists for other reasons like perceived conflict with religion and morality.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:29:45 2015 No.7290687 >>7290683 The government does nothing but make empty promises about climate change because their reelections are financed by businessmen.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:31:00 2015 No.7290689 File: 117 KB, 680x583, 1431464859156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290683 I thought oil companies financed political campaigns?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:32:14 2015 No.7290691 File: 32 KB, 189x179, 1414524464877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290683 >implying the government isn't controlled by oil companies

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:34:19 2015 No.7290692 >>7290689 you're perfectly right. I was just pointing out that the scientists are not any more noble than the oil companies.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:36:13 2015 No.7290695 >>7290691 if the government was controlled by oil companies then why would it finance climate change research that was going to confirm anthropogenic climate change?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:36:19 2015 No.7290697 The problem is not if the global warming is manmade or not, the real problem is that it is going to fuck the biosphere up, us included.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:37:21 2015 No.7290699 >>7290692 >hurr science is evil!

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:40:05 2015 No.7290702

>>7290699
if the scientists are financed by a party which has a vested interest in proving climate change, then they have a risk of losing their funds if they do not prove climate change. due to human nature are the scientists not biased for proving anthropogenic climate change?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:43:03 2015 No.7290706 >>7290702 Thing is, most climate scientists are NOT financed by parties.

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:46:32 2015 No.7290713

>>7290706
a lot of them are financed by the IPCC. While the IPCC is SUPPOSEDLY not affiliated with any political party, this does not matter. Government naturally wants to implement new laws that give it new power, and one excuse it uses to give itself power is climate change. One example of this is the Clean Air Act, which gives the US government the power to close down coal fired power plants.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:50:48 2015 No.7290721 >>7290713 So you think that tax money destined to projects that fight things that are detrimental to the biosphere and humanity is not well spent?

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:54:36 2015 No.7290730

>>7290721
I think that tax money destined to projects which fight things sufficiently detrimental to the biosphere are well spent, but that's irrelevant. we were talking about whether IPCC scientists are biased towards trying to prove anthropogenic climate change. Regardless of whether proving ACC turns out to be beneficial to the biosphere, the scientists are still biased.

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:55:09 2015 No.7290731

>>7290689
Here's what the politicians are saying:

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick,said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:57:11 2015 No.7290733 You fags are posting on a science board and are interested in science but when it comes to climate change all the facts, data, studies and evidence which are so important to you in other fields go out the window with regards to AGW why?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:58:31 2015 No.7290735 >>7289992 I have a degree in environmental engineering you cuck. It's also my job. I know more about this than you ever will :^)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:58:55 2015 No.7290736 >>7290733 /pol/tards can't into science so the y stick to 'political' arguments. See: >>7290731

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:00:07 2015 No.7290738 >>7290731 And all that amounted to treaties and agreements that nobody gave a shit about. I agree that politicians only care about climate change for personal benefit and agendas though, they don't actually care about doing anything about it.

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:02:01 2015 No.7290741

>>7290736
I already posted a scientific argument.
>>7290684
Climate Change is politically charged, there's no getting away from that. the IPCC scientists which people rely on as evidence of climate change are being paid to prove climate change is man made. there has been very little research from these scientists on other theories on climate change, such as the one I posted.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:03:09 2015 No.7290742 >>7290736 besides, I very much doubt you or I are really in positions to argue about the nitty gritty of climate science. do you have a college degree in climatology? Well I certainly do not.

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:03:30 2015 No.7290743

>>7289992
Different environmental engineer here. You're full of shit like a goose.

The number of papers positing warming has always outnumbered those positing cooling by least 9:1.

The papers discussing cooling arent off base. The earth has was cooling for thousands of years up until the industrial revolution.

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:06:06 2015 No.7290747
File: 464 KB, 1914x926, muh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7290742

>>7290733

I feel like I'm the only one on thus board with a relevant degree this topic. Yet there's never any scientific debate in these threads.

This picture gets denialcucks all riled up.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:06:21 2015 No.7290751 >>7290742 I have a bachelors in engineering. So I can't delve into the nitty gritty of climatology, but I have an understanding of the basics. What's your degree in?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:09:35 2015 No.7290755 >>7290747 How much does 'bug science' pay you to post those lies you filthy shill? Everyone knows the big money is in climate science. If you really cared about the future you'd be working in fossil fuel extraction.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:11:40 2015 No.7290758 >>7290755 big* science lol

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:25:03 2015 No.7290790

>>7290747
None of those tards is going to understand the graphics anyway.
Protip: compare the prominent spike of anomalous temperatures in the last 100 years with the relative gradualness of natural changes that have occurred during thousands and millions of years in the past. If you can still deny that human activity doesn't strongly contribute to the current global warming you should visit a traumatologist, because you have your head highly up your ass
>b...but all climatologists, paleoclimatologists, paleobiologists, environmentalists, ecologists and all the scientists involved in the research of global warming are surely bought by the government!

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:26:51 2015 No.7290793

>>7290790
>all climatologists, paleoclimatologists, paleobiologists, environmentalists, ecologists and all the scientists involved in the research of global warming are surely bought by the government

How do I get my hands on some of that dank climate change money?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:29:35 2015 No.7290794 >>7290755 >>7290793 You should consider suicide.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:35:17 2015 No.7290806 >>7290794 That's an awfully mean thing to say. Why are your jimmies so rustled?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:39:56 2015 No.7290812 >>7290806 That wasn't meant to be offensive at all, it was a genuine, kind-hearted suggestion, for your own benefit and the benefit of our species.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:40:59 2015 No.7290815 File: 16 KB, 932x1042, 1427902270930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290790 The second you post a graph here some guy comes along and says >appeal to authority I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen it yet

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:14:07 2015 No.7290865

It doesn't matter because the effects are irreversible. Do you think we'll all magically just stop? It's a slow process and it's not going to help to try and stop it because the only thing that can stop it is if it happens. There's actually nothing you can do. We all die. Unless you're religious then maybe we come back but above the material plane as perfect beings. That's the only hope we have. Without religion it is more likely all ends like in heat death or possibly living on in multiple universe but more likely the former. That's why I'm religious. I want hope that I will live on extra heat death, beyond material constraints. We are subject to these material constraints. We only see below our dimension, the fifth dimension. Perhaps we can live on in the eighth dimension which I believe is what God inhabits. Because we inhabit the fifth dimension it is impossible to exist in the higher dimensions in a way that we can observe it. Although I believe a higher dimensional being like God can place us their in a higher dimension. The whole Bible is a way to tell us of these higher dimensions in a way that our limited observations can understand. http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-body.html

Think of it as raising above dimensions. From the fifth dimension to a higher one. Maybe not the eighth dimension but a higher one. One beyond "material" and into "spiritual," where we can live forever in peace and harmony. I don't actually believe this though. Just a shower thought I had this morning.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:16:23 2015 No.7290870
File: 3.94 MB, 1941x2441, Aldrin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

At times like this, its best to turn to what the experts have to say on the matter. Here's what Buzz Aldrin, who was an astronaut and a famous scientist says regarding climate change:

In 2009, Aldrin commented on climate change by saying: "I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it."[32]

Seems reasonable, no?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:18:24 2015 No.7290872 File: 21 KB, 250x250, 1386121894295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290865 That escalated into nonsense rather quickly.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:21:12 2015 No.7290874

>>7290870
and now let's ask an opthalmologist what he thinks about climatology. or for that matter, let's ask an economist about genetics, or a biologist about particle physics. there's more than one kind of scientist, you know.
I realize you're just trolling, but please put a little effort into it. 3/10

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:22:18 2015 No.7290876 >>7290870 No. Of course everything would return to normal with the pass of time, but it would take A LOT of time. If global temperatures reach the theorized maximum we and our direct descendants are screwed.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:23:07 2015 No.7290878 >>7290874 You know he went to the moon right? It seems a little disrespectful to doubt his knowledge of the world when he's one of the only people who's left the Earth seen it from above

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:25:09 2015 No.7290881 >>7290878 I'm 6'5" therefore I know about more than you since I'm tall enough to see more stuff from above. I'll revise your score to 5/10 for sheer chutzpah

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:27:06 2015 No.7290882 >>7290881 I think he's just an American rather than a troll, god I wouldn't be surprised considering their culture of fame and fortune. and believing everything those who have it say

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:30:53 2015 No.7290886 What's the difference in pay and amount of jobs for climatologists who work with global warming versus ones that don't?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:32:02 2015 No.7290887 >>7290878 >>7290882 Your arguments sound genuine but are pretty faulty. I would suggest reading a book from time to time. Unless you are a troll, then fuck off.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:39:18 2015 No.7290897

>T-the gubmit has incentive to make people believe in climate change!!!
Like what? What fucking incentive does the US government have in making people believe in climate change? And who the fuck is "the government" in this conversation? It certainly isn't Congress, where most members don't currently believe in AGW. Is it Obama? Does Obama have a stake in this? Why isn't he pushing it, then? Why is he being pretty shitty at it by all environmental group standards?

Who the fuck is this evil government that's pushing the global warming conspiracy and why? I genuinely would like to know.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:40:55 2015 No.7290900 >>7290897 >inb4 "green companies"

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:44:07 2015 No.7290904

>>7290886
...you know that you get paid the same regardless of what your results are, right? here's what affects your pay as a not-for-profit researcher:
-getting results published in a reputable journal
-writing good grant proposals
-level of experience

I keep seeing this completely imaginary claim that scientists get paid more if they support the status quo, and it's depressing that people might actually believe it. I'll tell you that the guy who disproves a widely-held theory, who actually has CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to back up his novel ideas, will have SO MUCH SHIT named after him, basically the research equivalent of getting All The Pussy. But all the deniers (with no background in earth sciences for the most part) just don't seem to understand how the scientific community operates.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:47:28 2015 No.7290908 >>7290897 >What is the carbon tax? >What is support for higher taxes on oil and coal?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:47:54 2015 No.7290909 The #2 and #3 companies on the Fortune 500 are oil companies. Unless fucking Wal-mart is heavily invested in green technology, I'm confused as to how those companies are being outspent.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:50:20 2015 No.7290912

>>7290908
Two things that are highly controversial and don't actually provide much revenue at all to the United States government?

You do realize that the US government does the opposite of that to oil, right? That we fucking subsidize big oil? To encourage it to drill? Do facts actually enter your head?

Don't you think if the US wanted to increase revenue, they'd do it in a way that actually makes sense?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:55:25 2015 No.7290919 >>7290904 You're assuming that's what I was insinuating.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:58:32 2015 No.7290925

>>7290912
most us energy subsidies go to renewable sources.
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
a carbon tax, if instated in the US, would be a huge source of revenue for the federal government.

Anonymous Thu May 28 00:01:03 2015 No.7290929

>>7290925
>Most us energy subsidies go to renewable sources?
So? Does this somehow negate the fact that htey do subsidize fossil fuels?
>Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion
Nope. Guess not.

>Carbon tax would be a huge source of revenue for the federal government
I bet you're one of those faggots who think cutting Congress' wages would help slow down our deficit too, huh?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 00:16:08 2015 No.7290955 >>7290929 >>7290912 You sound angry, I think you need to chill out...OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T, THE WORLD'S ON FIIIIIRE! #globalburning #AGWisnowAGB

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 00:27:34 2015 No.7290975 File: 44 KB, 640x560, pepedarkfrogs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289039 i know that feel

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 00:28:16 2015 No.7290978 >>7290955 >You sound angry Do I? How do you figure?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 01:25:45 2015 No.7291063 >>7290955 Good grief, you are one thoroughly retarded moron. Politics has drained your brain for good.

>>	Moose Thu May 28 01:47:47 2015 No.7291095 File: 53 KB, 222x222, award1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290975 that's a dank meme not even joking 10/10

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 02:50:34 2015 No.7291197 >>7289961 >were grammar Nazis You're really just asking for it.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 02:54:29 2015 No.7291198 by aliums https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7r4m_nQzQI

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 10:59:11 2015 No.7291860 >>7290878 I kek'd anon dw

Anonymous Thu May 28 11:10:25 2015 No.7291874

As strange as it is, I'm glad I'll live to see the full effects of climate change just so I can laugh at the deniers getting BTFO. I mean, civilisation will decline and hundreds of millions of people will die but you can't deny that particular aspect won't be a great source of schadenfreude.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 16:00:41 2015 No.7292569 >>7291874 But most of those people will die because of increased tides and storms which deniers will still just chalk up to "weather anomalies".

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 16:16:35 2015 No.7292631 >>7291874 Nah, I'd prefer not to live in a refugee camp and die of inanition or some fucked up disease, anon.

Anonymous Thu May 28 19:47:40 2015 No.7293196

>>7290747
Clearly you don't have a statistical background. Otherwise, you'd know that taking a bunch of low-frequency (smeared low sampling), largely decorrelated proxies and putting them together would make a flatish line. Then sticking a high frequency data set (instrumental data with much higher sampling) on the end is almost guaranteed to make a hockey stick shape. But its statistical garbage.

The hockey stick was called "quatsch" (garbage) by Hans von Storch

And there's all those other, er, difficulties: "hide the decline," redating proxies to get them to go up instead of down, cherry picking proxies...

Anonymous Thu May 28 19:50:13 2015 No.7293201
File: 68 KB, 634x447, hide the decline close up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7290790
Hiding the decline, pic related. The proxies went negative, demonstrating that they were bad proxies. So instead of dumping the data, they hid the decline.

Anonymous Thu May 28 19:53:05 2015 No.7293203
File: 6 KB, 600x480, marcott dating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7290790
Marcott's graph (in the upper left corner of your pic:>>7290747) did not originally have a big upward tick (in his dissertation). But guess what, he redated the proxies to change them from downward going to a big uptick. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 19:56:08 2015 No.7293209 File: 736 KB, 600x488, Not hockey stick loehle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7290790 And guess what. Here's a temperature graphic that's made without sewing instrumental data to the end. No hockey stick!

>>	Moose Thu May 28 20:03:06 2015 No.7293220 File: 538 KB, 1484x1056, imrs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7293201 >>7293203 >>7293209 So NASA and NOAA are lying to me?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 21:13:38 2015 No.7293332 File: 158 KB, 829x493, Prehistoric temps.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7293220 Context.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 21:36:11 2015 No.7293351 >>7293203 >everything is always 100% correct the first time you do it!

Anonymous Thu May 28 21:38:21 2015 No.7293354

>>7293201
>So instead of dumping the data, they hid the decline.
They did dump the data. That's what hiding the decline means.

They kept the data that they knew was good, and they threw out the data that was garbage. Based on our understanding of the biology of trees, we knew that everything past a certain point was a shit proxy but that everything before it was usable.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 21:49:19 2015 No.7293372 >>7290689 is that supossed to be riber?

Anonymous Thu May 28 21:52:25 2015 No.7293377

>>7293354
>They kept the data that they knew was good, and they threw out the data that was garbage. Based on our understanding of the biology of trees, we knew that everything past a certain point was a shit proxy but that everything before it was usable.

Impossible. The trees are supposed to be proxies for temperatures when most of the world lacked thermometers. If they fail as proxies with their latest growth rings (when there are thermometers), there's no reason to believe that their earlier growth are correct proxies.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 21:54:24 2015 No.7293381 >>7293351 Wrong. The dating of the original proxies (as in Marcott's dissertation) were taken from the published, peer-reviewed literature. He arbitrarily changed the dates without explanation, by about 50 years!

Anonymous Thu May 28 22:01:37 2015 No.7293389

>there's money in climate science guys!!!1!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
>page 5
>total government expenditures on climate change around $20 billion/year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue
>Exxon Mobil - $496 billion/year
>Chevron - $245 billion/year
>Conoco Phillips - $237 billion/year
>Valero - $125 billion/year
>top 4 US companies pull in revenue of $1.1 trillion/year

But keep on telling us that the money is in climate science, who wouldn't want to be a scientist begging for grant money as opposed to a well-paid researcher in the private sector?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 22:06:18 2015 No.7293397 >>7293389 Yeah, because oil companies spend all of their revenue on secret conspiracies to stop shitty solar and wind technology, not, you know, their business or anything. you clearly don't know what "revenue" is.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 22:18:21 2015 No.7293416 >>7293397 It's a more likely scenario than the idea that a joint conspiracy between the government and scientists is falsifying scientific data to promote climate change.

Anonymous Thu May 28 22:29:36 2015 No.7293435

>>7293416
>It's a more likely scenario than the idea that a joint conspiracy between the government and scientists is falsifying scientific data to promote climate change

The continents don't move theory. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]
The ether theory of light propagation. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]
Classical mechanics. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]
Fixed space and time theory. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]
Phlogiston theory of fire. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]
Atoms are the smallest piece of matter theory. Absolutely true! [unless there's a giant conspiracy]

>>	Moose Thu May 28 22:34:06 2015 No.7293441 >>7293332 Joanna Nova Major in microbiology Became popular hosting "Science Circus" a science program sponsored by Shell Great source XDD

Anonymous Thu May 28 23:02:58 2015 No.7293461

>>7293435
so, apparently:
speculation that is disproven once better evidence becomes available == theory supported by evidence but loudly questioned by politicians

look, shit like continental drift and recombination get ridiculed but then eventually proven when solid evidence surfaces to support them. the difference is that the climate deniers/"skeptics" want to compare themselves to the people who had evidence to support their stances...without actually having the evidence.

>>7293441
lmaoooooo

Anonymous Thu May 28 23:06:37 2015 No.7293468

>>7293435
You seem to be having loads of fun fighting that strawman there.

In any case, YOU were the one suggesting that climate scientists were all motivated by government money! That those other theories were disproved on the basis of their own merits, and not as a result of the revelation of a hidden conspiracy, only shows my point.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 21:29:37 2015 No.7295174 >>7293441 > I've got to use ad hominem The data source is peer reviewed. R. B. Alley, The Younger Dryas cold interview as viewed from central Greenland. Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 21:30:59 2015 No.7295177 >>7288738 >juxtaposing religion and muh science >>/reddit/

>>	Moose Fri May 29 21:31:39 2015 No.7295179 File: 48 KB, 900x675, 0000000000001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7295174 >questioning the validity of a source is an ad hominem

Anonymous Fri May 29 21:38:20 2015 No.7295194
File: 283 KB, 418x251, Projectionist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7293468
> oh no, endless demonstrations that accepted science can be wrong without a conspiracy.
> must distract by saying "Strawman."
Accepted science as been wrong many times before. Without the (pathetic ad hominem) psychological projection of "muh conspiracy!" The fact that you think that the Koch brothers and Big Oil are hiding behind every failure of Climate "Science" speaks volumes about your psychology.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 21:40:48 2015 No.7295199 >>7295179 The source is peer reviewed science. >>7295174 You questioned the person who delivered that peer reviewed scientific message. That is a form of ad hominem.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 21:44:33 2015 No.7295206 >>7293461 See >>7295194

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 22:18:53 2015 No.7295248 File: 15 KB, 454x453, 1429461312145.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289949 Anon please learn to environmental science, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Anonymous Fri May 29 22:38:41 2015 No.7295275

>>7295194
I'm sure it's just coincidence that the most prominent and outspoken critics of climate change keep turning out to have been funded in major part by interested parties in the energy industry. Willie Soon, anyone? Anthony Watts? And if they're on the level, why do they feel the need to hide the source of their funding?

Mainstream science has been wrong before, but it has been corrected by people bringing irrefutable evidence to the table, not by people alleging (without evidence) massive government conspiracies and basing their argument around the fact that mainstream science has been wrong before.

Anonymous Fri May 29 23:12:32 2015 No.7295353
File: 25 KB, 610x347, 11000-yr-temp-graph.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7295199
>The source is peer reviewed science.
And so is this graph from NOAA

The unprecedented speed not lining up with any other natural factors of warming is what's alarming. Not that "it's been hotter before!". That would be like going "the planets getting colder? who cares! it was cold during the ice age and we lived".

Anonymous Fri May 29 23:15:39 2015 No.7295357
File: 14 KB, 213x237, Government Money.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7295275
Anthony Watts received 1 tiny grant from a Koch related company about 10 years ago.
Willie Soon got about a million over 10 years. Since overhead takes about 50%, that amount to a tiny $50K a year. By contract, he was not allowed to acknowledge the source of that funding.

Meanwhile FedGov funds Climate "Science" to the tune of about $40,000K a year. By comparison, the amount of funding given to skeptics is miniscule. And do you think for a moment that FedGov is neutral? It stands to make $Billions off carbon taxes. Not to mention a vast increase in regulatory power. And the United Nations is asking for literally $Trillions over the next 10 years or so. You're incredibly naive if you think that governmental type organizations are "neutral."

What do you call a non-tenured, government funded scientist who publicly denies Climate Change "Science?" Unemployed!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:18:00 2015 No.7295361 File: 19 KB, 420x320, hide the decline added back.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7295353 Learn statistics. >>7293196 Not to mention how not to do science: >>7293201 >>7293203

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:18:12 2015 No.7295362 >>7288716 human induced cliamte change is real the question is how much and is it good or is it bad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs discuss

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:19:06 2015 No.7295367 >>7295357 >Why doesn't the government give more money to the crazy fringe scientists?!?!? I agree, anon. We need to send more people to the south poles to look for the holes that send us to the inside!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:22:53 2015 No.7295375 Why is it that deniers, necessarily being conspiracy theorists, never have any reason as to why the reptilians would actually want people to believe in climate change?

Anonymous Fri May 29 23:26:11 2015 No.7295388

>>7295367
I give you credit for humor. But the abject failure of every substantive prediction of Climate "Science" proves you wrong.

Substantive = Causally connected to anthropogenic CO2, clearly distinguished from natural climate variation.
Prediction = An actual before-the-fact publication with a hypothesized, quantitative result from anthropogenic CO2.

>nb4 here's my after-the-fact published prediction
You must cite the original, before-the-fact paper, to demonstrate that an after-the-fact publication is a confirmation of an actual prediction.

I you only cite after-the-fact publications without also citing the attendant before-the-fact published prediction, it it not a confirmation.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:29:43 2015 No.7295402 >>7295375 Here:>>7293435 And please stop your psychological projection >>7295194

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:46:48 2015 No.7295447 >>7295375 To introduce the unnatural practice of long-term thinking.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 23:54:04 2015 No.7295464 1000s of peer-reviewed studies pointing towards human-caused climate change vs 150 teenagers on /sci/ and /pol/ telling me its a conspiracy. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, which one should I trust and take into consideration?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 03:45:34 2015 No.7295802 >>7288716 >Oil Companies spend billions lobbying politicians >Could make their problems go away by bribing scientists with chump change. And people claim scientists have no integrity.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 03:47:54 2015 No.7295805 >>7295464 Careful with that logic, or you'll start being okay with Jewish people.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 04:45:04 2015 No.7295872 >>7289084 China is terraforming itself into a chemical desert and augmenting its people into rash-ridden mutants.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 05:03:52 2015 No.7295902 >>7290695 gotta buy new equipment somehow

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 05:09:14 2015 No.7295911 >>7290865 Y'know, I'd love to have faith, but the facts in front of me persuade me otherwise. It's just the devil in the Demiurge, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 05:19:06 2015 No.7295920 >>7290865 Put down the DMT pipe son, and throw away that acid. It's warping your mind

Anonymous Sat May 30 06:26:20 2015 No.7296007
File: 27 KB, 984x691, It's_a_meme_you_dip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7289961
>Le 9gag may may.
>Accusing 4chan users of having generally bad grammar.
>Bak.
>Grammar Nazis.
>Welcome to the Internet ebin may may.
I wont even tell you to lurk moar, just fucking leave or make a cunt-like incision upon your wrist.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 06:30:51 2015 No.7296021 >>7289961 >9gags >Welcome to the internet >grammar nazis >2 grammar mistakes in a row Wow, it's like I'm reading a comment on youtube.

Anonymous Sat May 30 06:52:54 2015 No.7296054

>>7290790
There is a real challenge in comparing changes on the scale of 1-200 years against records that are several hundred thousand years. At that long of a time scale you will only really be able to pick out trends.

It is difficult to compare what is by comparison virtually an instantaneous measure over what might represent the average of 10,000 years.

Not to say the planet is not warming, and rapidly at that. But I am unconvinced that we have the information to claim with certainty that this rate of temperature change is truly abnormal in the last million years.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 06:54:29 2015 No.7296057 >>7296054 this. every time I try and argue this, the notion is ignored or sidestepped, most often ignored

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 07:01:26 2015 No.7296072 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/17/shell-accused-of-strategy-risking-catastrophic-climate-change Lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 07:06:05 2015 No.7296080 >>7289961 >Louis Cuck King >via 9gag >grammar nazi >>>/reddit/

Anonymous Sat May 30 07:25:32 2015 No.7296099

>>7290929
Studies typically claiming massive subsidies for Fossil Fuels are often based on costing externalities.

For instance the major IMF study recently claiming $5.3 trillion in subsidies for Fossil Fuels was mostly based on costing environmental impacts.

The massive sums of money claimed to be subsidizing fossil fuels come about as a result of a loose definition of what a subsidy is.

It is not a case of the government paying for corporations to consume more fossil fuels, which is what intuitively most people think a subsidy entails. The bulk of what they are calling a "subsidy" is tied up in assumed costs to the environment.

There is no need to subsidize electricity generation from coal in a market sense. It is on average by a margin the cheapest means of generating electricity.

Anonymous Sat May 30 10:21:44 2015 No.7296253
File: 40 KB, 640x368, Mew've got to be kitten me right meow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7295357
>And do you think for a moment that FedGov is neutral? It stands to make $Billions off carbon taxes.
This wins the award for Most Retarded Argument of the Year. Really? You think the American federal government is trying to soak people for money through carbon taxes?
First off, the people writing the budgets are from the party that OPPOSES science (including climate science). Secondly, if Congress wanted to raise taxes, THEY'D RAISE TAXES. Instead of concocting some multi-million dollar ruse (like you allege) to fabricate a reason to raise taxes on big businesses, they'd just raise taxes on big businesses! (Of course, the anti-science party is also the anti-taxes-on-big-businesses party.)

Look, when the debate was over whether or not tobacco was harmful, it was the same old claims that government research was biased in favor of getting Uncle Sam's sticky fingers all over the tobacco companies' money. It was the same old allegations of a massive conspiracy to fake results showing that tobacco is bad for you, often by the same people who today push climate denialism in Congress (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0PYdl99tI).). And it's the same useful idiots like you making fallacious and unsubstantiated arguments based on science that you have at best a fringe understanding of (which is a beautiful example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action).

>What do you call a non-tenured, government funded scientist who publicly denies Climate Change "Science?" Unemployed!
Yes, for the same reason the scientist would be unemployed if he publicly denied evolution through natural selection: because he'd be going against the overwhelming majority of the evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 10:51:46 2015 No.7296306 Why did nobody deny the hole in the ozone layer? Why did everyone get on board to ban CFCs?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 12:58:09 2015 No.7296503 >>7296306 People DID deny CFC's effects. DuPont and some others in the industry set up groups like "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to try and shoot down the science proving that they were selling a harmful product.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:10:44 2015 No.7297587 >>7295464 The only one saying things are a conspiracy is you. Stop the psychological>>7295194 projection.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:12:19 2015 No.7297590 >>7295802 Provide exact, specific documentation of your conspiracy theoryl

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:21:48 2015 No.7297596
File: 29 KB, 645x282, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7293203
>>7290790
Real climate /sci/ here. I personally know Shaun Marcott and his paper on Holocene reconstruction is such a shitshow for both climate change advocates who misunderstood his paper and deniers who attacked his results based on what tertiary articles on what they read about his paper rather than his paper instead.

Pic related is from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

If you read the paper, he literally never addressed the uptick and compare the rate of warming in the last 100 years to the Holocene records. That is not the point of the paper. The point of the paper is global temperature reconstruction through multiple proxies during the Holocene. What he did was he compared the peak temperature that he had reconstructed to our modern temperature based on instrumental record.

Unfortunately, his paper got read and misunderstood, yielding to inaccurate article like this
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/science/earth/global-temperatures-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

which in turn got blindly parroted by the democrat liberal sides of media including motherjones, Rachel Maddow, and co.

Since the print media misunderstood his paper, the backlash from deniers are totally justified; it should not be directed against him personally but should be directed against the mainstream press instead for their echo chamber nature and lack of critical thinking.

With regards to the difference between the figure in his thesis and in his paper, his thesis was done in 2011 and he published the paper in 2013. Since his thesis he added several datasets (claim that his thesis used exactly the same amount of datasets as the final paper is wrong and might be literally libel)

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:24:13 2015 No.7297597
File: 161 KB, 407x309, Propaganda vs Science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7296253
Clearly you've never set foot inside the beltway.
The funding goes through bureaucracies like the National Science Foundation which is controlled by bureaucrats who are almost impossible to fire. Not to mention, the vast majority of bureaucrats are leftists. You really have no idea about how the government actually works; you only have the ivory tower sketch given to you by your government paid professor. Bureaucrats are always working to make government grow. Especially the bureaucrats at the EPA.

And the silly Tobacco thing? Yup your climate bedwetter "scientists" are busy trying to deny poor people cheap energy, and a strong productive economy. And most of them are paid by the most powerful organization in the world, FedGov.

>because he'd be going against the overwhelming majority of the evidence.
Then why is the history of climate change predictions littered with failures?

PS Your conspiracy theory psychological projecting is pathetic >>7293435. Science is not a popularity contest, nor is it settled by authority. Learn2Science

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:25:44 2015 No.7297600

>>7297596
Just quick tldr;

For AGW proponent: If you include his plot and claim that the "uptick" is real then you're either being dishonest or being mislead by the mainstream media (honest mistake by them, but some severe lack of critical thinking on the part of supposedly "science" writer).

For AGW deniers: You should attack the mainstream media for not understanding the statistical context of the paper, but not use ad hominem personal attacks against the scientists here.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 21:28:32 2015 No.7297605 File: 17 KB, 472x193, 4percent.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7288716 >climate change .. caused by humans? of course

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:36:48 2015 No.7297621

>>7297600
>For AGW deniers: You should attack the mainstream media for not understanding the statistical context of the paper
I understand the statistical context. And I understand exactly how it was described by climate scientists. Their own statistical context set the terms for falsifying the theory. Those terms have been met, so the theory has been falsified. Specifically, Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval)."Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature." Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

And here is the statistical study showing that the temperatures have flatlined: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:47:08 2015 No.7297631
File: 181 KB, 964x639, Westside Highway near the USS Intrepid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7293209

I think the funniest thing about that graph is the way Steve Goddard got his teeth kicked in in the comments section when he posted it.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/manns-conference-debunks-the-hockey-stick/

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:49:29 2015 No.7297636

>>7297621
I was talking about the statistical context in the specific paper (Marcott et al. 2013). It seems like you're talking about the global warming hiatus.

The scientific community is split on the hiatus, and the only honest answer as a scientist that I can give you is "we don't know." AGW proponents who claimed that the hiatus is not statistically significant are being dishonest and I'm not afraid to call out people in my camp who are being dishonest or putting on the team helmet without any shred of critical thinking.

The problem with the hiatus has been addressed in many papers such as

Kaufmann, Robert K., et al. "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.29 (2011): 11790-11793.

Kosaka, Yu, and Shang-Ping Xie. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling." Nature 501.7467 (2013): 403-407.

Schmidt, Gavin A., Drew T. Shindell, and Kostas Tsigaridis. "Reconciling warming trends." Nature Geoscience 7.3 (2014): 158-160.

Meehl, Gerald A., Haiyan Teng, and Julie M. Arblaster. "Climate model simulations of the observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming." Nature Climate Change (2014).

So WE ARE addressing the issue and working on it. There is no shame in admitting that currently there is no consensus of what is causing the hiatus. Astronomers seem to lean on solar forcing, oceanographes seem to lean on heat being stored in the ocean (although sfc temperature has stopped increasing, ocean still continues to warm), and numerical modelers are fixated on assessing the unforced variations, e.g. fancy word for artificial noise in their models.

However, regardless of the hiatus the fundamental first principle physics behind AGW theory is still very robust. The offset between measured radiation going in vs. out of the earth measured from satellite is real http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ (cont'd)

Anonymous Sat May 30 21:54:43 2015 No.7297648

>>7297621
>And here is the statistical study showing that the temperatures have flatlined: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis. He is professor of economics at the University of Guelph; a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market public policy think tank; and a member of the academic advisory boards of the John Deutsch Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:00:17 2015 No.7297657

>>7297636
(cont'd)

If you have higher energy coming in vs. going out measured from satellite, then according to conservation of energy you MUST heat up the earth. We know this radiation offset is due to greenhouse gas - CO2, CH4, and N2O have been proven beyond reasonable doubt in laboratory spectrometry experiment that they let visible radiation to pass and infrared to bounce back. We are increasing the CO2, CH4, and N2O concentration in the atmosphere. This is also an undeniable fact.

Just based on first principle, the null hypothesis is overall the earth should warm if you increase the GHG (greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere.

This theory still stand strong and very robust in predicting all the past climate change up to 800ky (ice core record) and the last 100 years of instrumental record.

Unless deniers can provide us with different Earth System Model (ESM) that can do at least as well of a job of predicting both past and present temperature changes as the dozens or so climate models featured in IPCC, WITHOUT the addition of greenhouse effect parameters, match the observations and does not violate fundamental physics (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy) then your argument has no ground.

AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is still our BEST theory in science to predict past and present changes in global temperature.

I'll sit here and wait until a denier can provide me with a single complete ESM alternative that doesn' involve AGW component. Go on and try find any in the peer reviewed literature

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:00:53 2015 No.7297658

>>7297631
>https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/manns-conference-debunks-the-hockey-stick/
Not what I see. I see someone citing the very unreliable SkepticalScience. On the other hand, the existence of the
Midieval warming period as a global phenomena is well established:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
No matter with the disingenuous shills at SkSc say. BTW, the idea that Mann was totally vindicated by the NAS is just false.

And look at the Wegeman report:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
"Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."

And the whole hockey stick thing has been thoroughly debunked:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:04:20 2015 No.7297666
File: 9 KB, 240x192, goal posts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297636
You're not addressing the fact that by the terms set out by climate scientists, the theory has been falsified.>>7297621
Setting up a falsifiability criterion and then when that criterion has been met, ignoring it - is not science.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:06:25 2015 No.7297670 >>7297657 >AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is still our BEST theory in science to predict past and present changes in global temperature. Then you can easily answer the question: >>7295388

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:09:41 2015 No.7297676

>>7297657
>"Just based on first principle, the null hypothesis is overall the earth should warm if you increase the GHG (greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere"

Incorrect. The Null hypothesis is of no association, the hypothesis however is of association.

To claim that the null hypothesis is an association is a fallacy, and shifts the burden of proof.

We set out to reliably disprove the null hypothesis and therefore find support for the hypothesis. We do not set out to support a hypothesis to disprove a null.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:09:52 2015 No.7297677 >>7297666 So some guy's opinion is "the terms set out by climate scientists?" These threads are so stupid. The same retarded memes get posted over and over. Meanwhile climatology continues. You lost. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:18:21 2015 No.7297686 >>7297666 Except that global temp HAS increased in the last 15 years. Deniers are ALWAYS claiming the temps are flat over some period of time. Tell us when you want a serious discussion and not meme-spouting.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:24:26 2015 No.7297693

>>7297676
In any scientific model that's worth a damn, the null hypothesis follows the basic fundamental laws of physics.

If I drop an apple from the second floor, what is the null hypothesis? The apple gonna fall and follow gravity or gonna stay suspended in mid air?

If you think the we should start with null hypothesis that defies fundamental physics, then you're retarded. Take your pseudo intellectual philosophy jargon back to /pol/.

>>7295388
>You must cite the original, before-the-fact paper, to demonstrate that an after-the-fact publication is a confirmation of an actual prediction

Schmidt, G. A., et al. "Using paleo-climate comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5." (2013).

Hargreaves, J. C., A. Abe-Ouchi, and J. D. Annan. "Linking glacial and future climates through an ensemble of GCM simulations." Climate of the Past 3.1 (2007): 77-87.

Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. "Past and future polar amplification of climate change: climate model intercomparisons and ice-core constraints." Climate Dynamics 26.5 (2006): 513-529.

And many more. We started each model run in the PAST, so that we can make sure that the model follows observed temperature both in ice cores and instrumental record first before start predicting the future. If the model is successful in predicting the past 20ky, the fundamental physics, heat and momentum transfer is well quantified, then why shouldn't we trust the model projections going forward?

Actualy this is the PREREQUISITE requirement for any climate model worth a damn

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:26:39 2015 No.7297697

>>7297677
>>7297677
Santer, Mears, Doutriaux, Caldwell, Gleckler, Wigley, Solomon, Ivanova, Karl, Lanzante, Meehl, Stott, Taylor, THorne, Wehner, Wentz and Phil Jones are not peer-reviewed, climate scientists? just some guys?

Climate Change theory falsification criterion met => "just some guys," Climate Change is true!
Climate Change theory prediction criterion met => "peer reviewed scientists vindicated," Climate Change is true!

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 22:28:56 2015 No.7297703 >>7297686 The prediction is specific to the troposphere. And as demonstrated by the citation at the bottom of here, >>7297621 it has not warmed.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:32:19 2015 No.7297710

>>7297697
Wrong again. There is too much uncertainty in troposphere measurements to determine that there is no warming. Meanwhile every reliable indicator of climate change clearly shows warming. Just ignore global temps, ocean heat, ice, etc. and cling to MUH TROPOSHPERE. Pathetic.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:33:05 2015 No.7297713

>>7297693
In that example the null hypothesis would be that the apple would stay suspended. The hypothesis however would be that it would fall due to gravity. When we observe it falling we would reject the null hypothesis in favor of the hypothesis.

"In inferential statistics on observational data, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena"

You do not understand what a null hypothesis is. Furthermore you do not understand what bearing it has on the burden of proof.

I am not arguing against anthropogenic climate change, however you do not understand the scientific method.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:34:40 2015 No.7297717

>>7297693
You haven't cited a single prediction that was actually published in the past, before-the-fact. Anyone can fit a model to past data. It means nothing. The world of investment banking is filled with quants who had wonderful models at predicting the past. They fall to pieces when they have to deal with the actual future.

Without a doubt, you will fail and get angry when required to provide an actual prediction published before the fact. (together with the confirmatory paper after-the-fact). Because you can't.

Answer the question:
>>7295388

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:37:31 2015 No.7297724

>>7297697
I doubt most of those people agree that they set a "falsification criterion" based on a single measurement, nor would they agree that the measurement can be described as you've described it. Why beat around the bush with quotes and not just show us the papers from these credible climatologists detailing how climate change was falsified? Oh wait there are none. Well I'm sure you have a really interesting conspiracy theory to explain that.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:38:36 2015 No.7297726

.>>7297710

Model prediction for troposphere warming works => Climate Change is true!
Model prediction for troposphere warming fails => Muh uncertainty, Climate Change is true!

This is the fundamental problem with Climate Change, it is not a science. As the philosopher of science, Karl Popper pointed out, in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. And he meant this in a very real way; not just an abstraction (see the quote below). He said, essentially, "every experiment is a falsifiability test." If negative results of experiments do not falsify a theory it's an unscientific testing of the theory.
But all plausible observations are compatible with Climate Change. Whether snow becomes rare, or snow becomes more common; it's all good. Troposphere temperatures go up significantly or they don't, either way, it's OK. If the "hot spot" signature is found, that's proof of climate change, but if it's not found, no problem. Or if the Antarctic sea ice melts or it grows either is compatible with Climate Change. Extreme weather increases or it doesn't increase, well that's OK too.
There is no plausible observation that can falsify Climate Change theory and that is why it is not science.

PS, Here is Popper in his own words: From Karl Popper, "Science and Falsification" published in Conjectures and Refutations (1963).
"Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory"

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:42:03 2015 No.7297730

>>7297724
>based on a single measurement,
Not based on a single measurement. Based on a very large number of measurements of the troposphere over 17 years of time. That's 1000s of measurements.

>Well I'm sure you have a really interesting conspiracy theory to explain that.
Resort to ad hominem. You really have lost the argument. Seriously when you deny the peer reviewed work of climate scientists because its very inconvenient, don't pretend you're thinking scientifically.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:44:40 2015 No.7297736
File: 200 KB, 862x735, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297717
>You haven't cited a single prediction that was actually published in the past, before-the-fact.

By your logic then I need to provide you with a climate model that is established in the early 1900s to predict the warming in the 20th century. That's utterly retarded and unfair requirement you know it, climate science is not that old.

The earliest climate model intercomparison run is CMIP1 and pic related is the abstract/intro excerpt from

Lambert, Steven J., and George J. Boer. "CMIP1 evaluation and intercomparison of coupled climate models." Climate Dynamics 17.2-3 (2001): 83-106.

Even on the earliest generation of climate models (we're now up to CMIP5), the models successfuly predict many basic climate parameters such as latitudinal variations in temperature, how the arctic will warm faster than the tropics, and general average air temperature trend

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:52:26 2015 No.7297749
File: 303 KB, 897x597, hansen 1988.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297736
>By your logic then I need to provide you with a climate model that is established in the early 1900s to
Nonsense, its been at least 30 years, that's time enough Here's a prediction. Its just that its a failed prediction, Hansen (1988). Scenario A is what occurred; an increase in CO2 output, but the temperature increase doesn't correspond.

Citing an old model means nothing. What is the specific, quantitative prediction that is clearly distinguished from natural climate variation? Its been warming ever since the Little Ice Age.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:53:14 2015 No.7297752

>>7297726
>Model prediction for troposphere warming works => Climate Change is true!
No one has ever claimed that climate change is true simply based on a measurement of the troposhere. It's all the evidence taken together. Yet you are claiming that a single measurement falsifies climate change WHILE ignoring all the evidence contrary. Not to mention that this measurement is unreliable. Again, no credible climatologist argues that climate change is falsified by this. Your argument is therefore based on nothing but innuendo.

>This is the fundamental problem with Climate Change, it is not a science.
Of course it's not. It's a theory in the science of climatology. Climatology is a science. The best climatology we have supports the theory. That's really all that needs to be said. Your whining is completely inconsequential. You are really no different from those who deny evolution or medical science.

>But all plausible observations are compatible with Climate Change. Whether snow becomes rare, or snow becomes more common; it's all good.
What you actually mean by this is that you cannot disprove climate change. But that is completely different from climate change being unfalsifiable. For example, there is no currently existing evidence or reasoning that can be made that disproves evolution. Arguments or evidence that have been proposed are either inconsequential or explained by evolutionary biologists. Of course, deniers will take their own inadequacy to prove their point only as further evidence that "evolution is not a science", because no argument they make is working. The fact that scientists have not accepted the conclusion you believe in does not make them unscientific.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:56:10 2015 No.7297756

>>7297730
>Not based on a single measurement. Based on a very large number of measurements of the troposphere over 17 years of time. That's 1000s of measurements.
Sophistry does not help your case.

>Resort to ad hominem.
Hardly an ad hominem.

>Seriously when you deny the peer reviewed work of climate scientists because its very inconvenient, don't pretend you're thinking scientifically.
So you don't deny the massive amounts of peer reviewed work of climate scientists that make climate change a scientific fact? Then I guess the argument is over.

And please show me the peer reviewed paper falsifying climate change as I asked for.

Anonymous Sat May 30 22:57:26 2015 No.7297759

>>7297749
>Citing an old model means nothing. What is the specific, quantitative prediction that is clearly distinguished from natural climate variation?

You obviously didn't even read the abstract of the papers that I posted. The whole point of the paper is to address some predictions from CMIP1 runs. Some basic predictions like arctic warm faster than tropics, and latitudinal variations in temperature is correct. Some other predictions such as precipitation pattern is not as good.

CMIP1 is in the early 90's and you have to wait for at least 10-15 years to falsify climate prediction due to natural variability. I think this paper satisfy your criterion for before the fact prediction and an objective assessment of said prediction

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:00:28 2015 No.7297763

>>7297749
>GIVE ME AN OLD MODEL THAT PREDICTED CURRENT TRENDS
>OLD MODELS MEAN NOTHING
Spot the impossible and arbitrary standard of proof

Guess what, hindcasting is just as legitimate as predictive models and CO2 is the only explanation for the trends we see currently. Climate Change is a fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:02:24 2015 No.7297767 File: 74 KB, 566x634, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7297749 >/sci/ >wordpress blog >wordpress blog >wordpress blog Nice source buddy

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:04:05 2015 No.7297771

>>7297752
At this point you're grasping at straws.
>Of course it's not. It's a theory in the science of climatology. Climatology is a science
Nice strawman argument. "its not science its a part of science." That's a serious non-sequitur. What is said is essentially, "Its not science because its not falsifiable."

>What you actually mean by this is that you cannot disprove climate change.
Yeah, right. You can't even provide a genuine, substantive prediction as in here:
>>7295388
The list of "climate change failures" is a mile long, for examples see here:
>>7297726
>>7297749
What you are really saying is "no matter what the empirical results is, I will believe in climate change." You remind me of B.F. Skinner who clinged to behaviorism, long after Chomsky wreaked havoc to his theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:04:38 2015 No.7297772 >>7297767 Also did you notice there are no error bars?

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:09:24 2015 No.7297784

>>7297726
Poppers account of falsification has some holes though. According to the Quine-Duhem Thesis if our theory and our background beliefs and assumptions together predict that some risky prediction E is true and E turns out to be false, then it is extremely difficult to isolate a single hypothesis or assumption or belief that should be rejected because there are so many.

Now Popper was great in that he BTFO logical positivism, and has been incredibly influential, but quoting him as if his opinion on the demarcation problem is the end all to philosophy of science is ridiculous. Imre Lakatos has a better answer IMO.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:09:32 2015 No.7297785

>>7297771
>You remind me of B.F. Skinner who clinged to behaviorism, long after Chomsky wreaked havoc to his theory.

Social scientist (lol) and possible /pol/ tard detected. I think for some reason /sci/ thread on climate change unfortunately got crossposted by a lot of /pol/tards because muh government control and freedumb

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:10:12 2015 No.7297786
File: 39 KB, 551x482, antarctic cooling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297759
>I not going to show how it distinguishes from natural climate variation because I can't.
> I'm going to pretend that it didn't predict antarctic warming because it actually cooled.

The model predicted that both poles would warm faster. How disingenuous of you to ignore the Antarctic. And yes, related models predicted Antarctic sea ice melting. How disingenuous to ignore that. Oh, and that hot spot prediction failed too. Gosh, you forgot to talk about that one.

Originally Antarctic sea ice was predicted to melt.
1. Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
2. Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model. G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:16:05 2015 No.7297791

>>7297784
>then it is extremely difficult to isolate a single hypothesis or assumption or belief that should be rejected because there are so many.
This sounds an awful lot like "no matter what happens my theory is good." Funny, back in college I thought Quine was cool. This is suspect.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:16:45 2015 No.7297794

>>7297771
>At this point you're grasping at straws.
Riiiiiiiight, the entire field of climatology disagrees with you but I'm the one grasping at straws...

>Nice strawman argument. "its not science its a part of science."
How the hell is that a strawman? Not only do you spout retarded denier memes, you are also intent on proving you learned how to argue over the internet.

>What is said is essentially, "Its not science because its not falsifiable."
Yes, and I replied to that exact argument. You are confusing your inability to disprove a scientific fact with bad arguments from the internet with unfalsifiability. It's funny really.

>Yeah, right. You can't even provide a genuine, substantive prediction as in here:
The IPCC models are there for anyone to see. I'm not going to waste my time making a chart for you. Do it yourself. Anyway, your standard is arbitrary and pointless. Hindcasting is no more or less legitimate than forecasting in explaining climate change. Again, nothing you've said counters the massive amount of work done by climatologists that supports the theory and makes it a fact. You are simply setting the terms of the argument so you can ignore this and pretend that your arguments are just as valid. But there not. Again, no credible climate scientist agrees with you that climate change is falsified by current troposhere data. Again why is that? Are you just a better scientists than them? Or are they just in it for the money? Please tell me why you think you know better.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:18:56 2015 No.7297800 >>7297767 The source is Hansen 1988 and RSS data. "Kill the messenger" is nothing but ad hominem.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:22:19 2015 No.7297808

>>7297794
> the entire field of climatology disagrees
Appeal to authority and false. Lindzen, Singer, Curry...

>The IPCC models are there for anyone to see.
Not a prediction
>Hindcasting is no more or less legitimate than forecasting in explaining climate change.
Seriously false. You really need a class in machine learning. Or try predicting the future stock market from past data fitting. You'll be very surprised.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:22:42 2015 No.7297809
File: 74 KB, 573x649, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297786
>climatecooling.org

You made this too easy buddy.

>The model predicted that both poles would warm faster.

CMIP1 (and every single other climate model there is) predicted that Arctic would warm faster than Antarctic due to to existence of Antarctic Circumpolar Current that buffers the warming. Greentexting and implying without providing evidence doesn't mean that you're right.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:23:31 2015 No.7297810

>>7297786
What's really funny is that you are trying to use those failed predictions as evidence against climate change, when we now know the reason Antarctic sea ice grew was because of reduced ozone over Antarctica and the water accumulating from melting land ice. So really you're the one conveniently ignoring the facts. You are trying to say that the failure of a specific prediction shows that climatologists don't know what they're talking about, and thus we should throw out climate change. Except that the reason the prediction failed is because of unconsidered effects of climate change, not because climate change isn't real. Your argument falls apart. The debate is not over whether scientists can predict the climate, it's over whether climate change is happening. The former is not a requirement of the latter.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 30 23:26:09 2015 No.7297816 >>7297800 >"Kill the messenger" is nothing but ad hominem. If the wordpress writer is so good, why can't he get his paper on a peer review journal? Peer review is the cornerstone of modern science

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:28:44 2015 No.7297820

>>7297791
I can totally see how this could be used as a cop-out, but he does have a point.

A theory is basically (oversimplification coming through, but you'll see my point) a big conjunction of hypostheses

T = H1 & H2 & H3 &... Hn

Now just by using DeMorgans law we know that

(NOT T) = (NOT H1) OR (NOT H2) OR (NOT H3) OR ... (NOT Hn)

So throwing out an entire theory because it doesn't hold up to one test doesn't make sense.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:29:50 2015 No.7297822
File: 66 KB, 590x360, obamacareenrollment-fncchart.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297800
>Source is US Dept. of Human and Health Service
>Why are you shooting the poor messengers of Fox news for misleading graphs?

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:32:36 2015 No.7297829

>>7297809
> that Arctic would warm faster than Antarctic
Strawman argument. I never said that it didn't predict that the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. But it predicted warming. When the warming failed, the back-tracking, ooppps we meant "cooling" "prediction" was heard. As usual, unfalsifiablility.

Antarctic warms as predicted => Climate Change is true!
Antarctic cools, not as predicted => buffering!, so climate change is true!

Sorry it was supposed to warm, not cool. Stop trying to rewrite history.

1. Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
2. Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model. G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:32:42 2015 No.7297830

>>7297808
>Appeal to authority and false. Lindzen, Singer, Curry...
Not an appeal to authority, an appeal to expertise. Perfectly valid in a scientific debate and of course you have no argument against it. There will always be a few people who deny the consensus in every field. There are biologists and paleontologists who deny evolution. That doesn't mean evolution isn't a scientific fact completely supported by biology and the fossil record.

>Not a prediction
So AR4 for example, did not make a prediction? Do you know what you're talking about?

>Seriously false. You really need a class in machine learning. Or try predicting the future stock market from past data fitting. You'll be very surprised.
Again, the entire idea that this is about predicting the climate is false. climatologists know that climate is a chaotic system. We are trying to explain why the climate did what it did. Hindcasting is therefore just as valid.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:39:28 2015 No.7297841

>>7297829
>But it predicted warming.

And it's true. Antarctica IS warming

Ding, Qinghua, et al. "Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming." Nature Geoscience 4.6 (2011): 398-403.

Bromwich, David H., et al. "Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth." Nature Geoscience 6.2 (2013): 139-145.

Turner, J., et al. "Significant warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere." Science 311.5769 (2006): 1914-1917.

And many more. All peer reviewed observations in high impact rating scientific journals. Sea ice expansion doesn't mean that continental Antarctica is not warming. Warmer air hold more moisture = more accumulation. Also more melt = more ice gets transported to sea ice.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:39:35 2015 No.7297843

>>7297810
>the reason Antarctic sea ice grew was because of reduced ozone over Antarctica and the water accumulating from melting land ice

You don't know that, its just an after-the-fact excuse. No matter how many failed predictions Climate "Science" makes, you'll have another excuse. Its funny how no matter how many times you fail we're supposed to believe your "chicken little, the sky is falling" stories. "Most, if not all of my predictions failed, but I predict that the Earth is in serious trouble, if you don't do what we tell you to do." The problem is, you have no credibility.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:43:27 2015 No.7297851

>>7297843
>Even the earliest generation climate model made a mostly accurate prediction on the general trends of AGW with respect to sea level rise, ice sheet and glacier shrinkage, increased extreme events, droughts in certain areas and floodings in others

>Nitpick one wrong component of a 25 years old computer model

ALL CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG !

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:46:06 2015 No.7297857

>>7297830
>Perfectly valid in a scientific debate and of course you have no argument against it.
Nonsense. A record of successful predictions is what makes credibility.

>>Not a prediction
>So AR4 for example, did not make a prediction? Do you know what you're talking about?
Seriously, your logic is fading fast. Naming a model is not stating a prediction. Its simply naming a model. I never said AR4 didn't make predictions. I said you didn't state a prediction. Certainly not one that fulfills:
>>7295388

The fact that you think hindcasting and forecasting is the same shows your naivete. If they are, why don't you go get rich in the capital markets? Seriously, go for it!

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:51:02 2015 No.7297865

>>7297841
>Turner, J., et al. "Significant warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere." Science 311.5769 (2006): 1914-1917.

The massive increase in anthropogenic CO2 didn't occur until after WWII. Thanks for showing that there can be significant polar warming from natural effects. Proves that polar warming doesn't distinguish CAGW from normal climate variability.

Oh boy, a few parts of the Antarctic appear to warm, Big deal look at the graph:
>>7297786

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:52:03 2015 No.7297867

>>7297857
>If they are, why don't you go get rich in the capital markets? Seriously, go for it!

Climate models run on empirical physical principles such as momentum, mass, and heat transfer, all proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Financial market models run on non empirical laws in soft science like sociology and politics. With hard sciences like physics, scientific results can be repetitively duplicated, whereas the answer to most of the big economic questions is usually "it depends".

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:56:25 2015 No.7297873

>>7297843
>You don't know that, its just an after-the-fact excuse.
Yeah just like all of science you fucking twat. Seriously you are parroting Ken Ham word for word now. Got any other gems for me?

>"Most, if not all of my predictions failed, but I predict that the Earth is in serious trouble, if you don't do what we tell you to do."
You keep repeating this as if it's true. Again, major models like IPCC have done well. Their scenarios have been accurate since the 90s.

>The problem is, you have no credibility.
Look in the mirror you fucking nut.

Anonymous Sat May 30 23:57:48 2015 No.7297875
File: 17 KB, 425x276, CO2-Graph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297865
>The massive increase in anthropogenic CO2 didn't occur until after WWII

Just because I said so it means that it's true

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/
Go plot it yourself, here's the primary data

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr75

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:00:11 2015 No.7297878
File: 7 KB, 568x320, south troposhere.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297865
Or is 1914-1917 supposed to be page numbers?
The graph remains:
>>7297786 (You)
And see attached for troposphere. Flat as a board (let me guess data adjusting games are in your reference). The Antarctic troposphere has actually cooled since 1997.

BTW, I thought muh, "we have trouble with measuring the troposphere!"

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:01:47 2015 No.7297879 >>7297873 >Yeah just like all of science you fucking twat. Fuck you. You have resorted to verbal crap because i point out after-the-fact excuses to maintain falsifiability. All observations are compatible with climate "Science."

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:02:48 2015 No.7297881 >>7297879 That's unfalsifiability.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:04:40 2015 No.7297885 File: 140 KB, 1161x1024, Industrial Revolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7297875 Its called the industrial revolution which really didn't get going strong until after WWII. And thanks for showing natural polar warming.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:07:26 2015 No.7297889
File: 195 KB, 536x2096, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297873
>Again, major models like IPCC have done well

Minor nitpick, IPCC is not a model. IPCC used results from CMIP (Climate Model Intercomparison Project) which in turn averages them all together. If you see the scatter, many of these models predict different things, but the average is the closest we have to a best prediction.

The reason I said this is that any prediction from a single climate model like cited by >>7297829 in this day and age wouldn't hold any ground.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:08:07 2015 No.7297891

>>7297749
oh look, another graph showing the temperatures diverging from the model (still rising, but more slowly than predicted) RIGHT AT 1993.

Why have none of the deniers ever heard of Mount Pinatubo? FUCK SAKE, and you guys expect to be taken seriously. You can take your simplistic shitposting elsewhere.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:09:21 2015 No.7297892

>>7297873

>Look in the mirror you fucking nut.

Failed to provide a meaningful prediction as described here:
>>7295388
Failed to show how CAGW isn't unfalsifiable; how it isn't compatible with any plausible empirical observation.

Resorts to naughty words. That pretty much sums up the state of the Climate Change secular religion.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:11:47 2015 No.7297893 >>7297889 Then state the predictions with the before the fact publications and the after-the-fact publications (confirmations). That pic does not provide a specific prediction as described here: >>7295388

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:11:55 2015 No.7297894

>>7297772
it's also that common denier tactic of "glue together two or three vaguely related graphs without labeling the axes, and just hand-wave to justify concatenating them"
they're more interested in slapping together pictures that look convincing at first glance than actually making arguments driven by the evidence. it's argumentum ad low-quality-infographic.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:12:06 2015 No.7297895

>>7297857
>Nonsense. A record of successful predictions is what makes credibility.
OK so where are the denier predictions?

Again, predictions have nothing to do with the debate. What makes one credible is whether one has a good scientific analysis of the data. Understanding how the climate reacts to a certain stimulus does not mean you can predict the climate. You would have to predict things like greenhouse gas emissions and natural temp changes that can't be predicted. And if you look at organizations like the IPCC they review their past models and show that they are accurate if you input those variables. But you are ignoring this and asking for a standard of proof that makes no sense because you have no argument against the science itself.

>Seriously, your logic is fading fast. Naming a model is not stating a prediction. Its simply naming a model. I never said AR4 didn't make predictions. I said you didn't state a prediction. Certainly not one that fulfills:
IPCC has published over the years their models which make predictions given various scenarios. I'm not going to make a graph for you because it would be a waste of time and as I've already explained it has nothing to do with the debate anyway. You could look it up if you were actually interested in seeing if there was an accurate prediction. But you're not. This is just a pathetic way to say you've won the "argument" because I won't acquiesce to your arbitrary standard of evidence. But there is no argument here. Just you whining.

>The fact that you think hindcasting and forecasting is the same shows your naivete.
I never said they were the same I said they were equally valid. Lying about what others said when the text is right there is not very smart.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:12:27 2015 No.7297896

>>7297885
>I-i know that buldge !
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-peter-gleick-edition/

>>7297885
>amazon, climate corruption.pdf

At least provide some figures from a peer reviewed journals buddy. Now you're just drinking the kool-aid and regurtitating amateurly made figures with no peer review backings.

At least all the figures I posted to support my argument come from a legitimate source

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:14:21 2015 No.7297898 >>7297893 Keep citing your own post buddy. I already gave you the CMIP1 assessment paper

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:14:58 2015 No.7297899

>>7297857
Continued...
>If they are, why don't you go get rich in the capital markets?
So you think that understanding how humans affect the climate means that you should be able to predict the climate? Because this is patently false. Yet it seems to be the underlying reasoning of your demand for predictions. Even if we understood AGW completely, we would still not be able to predict greenhouse gas emissions each year or natural events like El Nino. Therefore we could not predict the climate. So once again your argument falls apart. Failed predictions do not imply a misunderstanding of Climate Change. It could simply indicate that you failed to account for other factors. This is in fact the case and why models are changed.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:19:23 2015 No.7297901
File: 425 KB, 644x476, fox-news-graph-fail.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297896
>>7297896
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-peter-gleick-edition/

I meant for this >>7297878

Everyone can google search the opinion they want and cite any denier blog. Citing a real peer reviewed paper is slightly harder for deniers though

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:19:56 2015 No.7297902

>>7297879
Again, how is this any different from the arguments by Creationists that we can't know what happened in the past and thus evolution is an after-the-fact excuse? Actually that's not even a fair comparison because climate change has made more accurate predictions than evolution has. Again, how is climate change unfalsifiable? Your inability to argue with scientists does not indicate unfalsifiability. It indicates you hold an uneducated opinion. Again, what makes you more credible? Are you a better scientist than them all? Are they all corrupt? Tell me.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:27:12 2015 No.7297918

>>7297898
I'm pretty sure I've seen that nutbar before.
A couple AGW threads back, he just kept citing his own post demanding that people give him examples of climatological predictions that were proven to be true...and then completely ignoring/discounting the examples people here provided. it went mostly like this:

>show me before-the-fact predictions, not all this after-the-fact stuff
okay, here's an example.
>no, that's no good! it was published after the time period it made predictions on!
well duh, otherwise they wouldn't be able to put the "predicted" and "observed" lines on a graph together to compare them. the prediction was made beforehand, if you read the methodology. it was just republished after the fact for purposes of checking how well it predicted temperatures.
>...
>I demand before-the-fact predictions! you still can't show me any before-the-fact predictions that were proven true!

And that's pretty much how it went. He also posted some graphic alleging that the scientific consensus is a lie because:
>990/1000 published scientists polled support the theory of climate change
>yeah, well, 3000/4000 people who responded to our blog's poll reject the theory
>so that's 1990 in favor, 3010 against.
>where's the consensus NOW? lol libtards can't do math
He posted that graphic in earnest and refused to account for why he'd make such a moronic argument. He's not remotely worth listening to.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:28:09 2015 No.7297920
File: 6 KB, 183x275, lysenko.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297895
>I'm not going to make a graph for you because it would be a waste of time and as I've already explained it has nothing to do with the debate anyway.
> I failed to accurately document a successful prediction so I'm not going to talk to you.

Whatever. Enjoy your unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Climate Change Scientist: "We predict unicorns coming out of Antarctic sea ice."
Evil Denier: "But we haven't seen any unicorns"
Climate Change Scientist: "The change in ozone depleted all the visible unicorns, but rest assured that they're there."

Sleep well tonight knowing that you are preaching one of the greatest pieces of pseudo-scientific garbage ever created. And here's a picture of another guy who used government authority to further "science."

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:28:42 2015 No.7297924

>>7297892
>Failed to provide a meaningful prediction as described here:
Failed to look at the projections climatologists have made as described here:
>>7297794
>>7297873

Failed to fucking read why such a demand is nonsensical as described here:
>>7297830
>>7297895
>>7297899

>Failed to show how CAGW isn't unfalsifiable; how it isn't compatible with any plausible empirical observation.
If it's compatible with every empirical observation then you are admitting all of the arguments above in which you attempt to disprove climate change are bullshit? Do you or do you not believe it's falsifiable? I'm confused.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:30:35 2015 No.7297925

>>7297918
I'm pretty sure that you failed to cite any substantive predictions. So you're bringing out the naughty words. That's ok, it must hurt knowing that you're a useful pseudo-scientific idiot. Seriously how do you have such faith in an unfalsifiable dogma?

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:31:07 2015 No.7297927

>>7297920
>Enjoy your unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
Kettle calling the pot black. What empirical evidence would prove climate change to you? Because for some reason you think you know better than climatologists. I'm asking for the third time, why do you think you are more credible?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:32:34 2015 No.7297929 >>7297918 Oooh oooh, that was me talking to the nutbar! Yeah he eventually posts his Lysenko pic and then leaves. Typical /pol/smoker

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:36:11 2015 No.7297932

>>7297924
Haven't I seen this guy before? The guy who can't actually provide before-the-fact successful predictions. So resorts to vague references, and failed predictions and then after all that says "muh, I gave answers." Yeah, that guy, the guy who has faith in a failed pseudo-science.

Seriously you did not state actual projections. Because substantive predictions failed.So resorts to purposeful vaugery

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:37:05 2015 No.7297933 >>7288716 It doesn't matter if it is. Catastrophic global cooling or warming could happen regardless of our actions. Instead of arguing it's better to ask how to fortify our civilisation against disasters in general.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:39:30 2015 No.7297936

>>7297929
Typical guillible eco-socialist. Believes a trace gas essential to plant life and a logarithmic response curve will kill all humanity. Seriously believes in a theory that is littered with failed predictions but claims "much, we're all going to die if we don't stop using fossil fuels." Typical climate bed-wetter.

You know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:41:09 2015 No.7297939

>>7297925
actual earth scientists are not accountable for your inability to read the sources shown to you.
that thread is old enough that it's no longer in the archives, but you were given at least one source which you discounted entirely because (as I described) it was published after the time period studied, despite the clear documentation showing that the actual predictions were made in advance.

good to see you confirm that you're the same nutbar. seriously, why did you post that graphic "disproving" the consensus? it was a crime against statistics, and you REFUSED to explain why you posted it. care to enlighten us as to your reasoning?

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:43:44 2015 No.7297945
File: 117 KB, 481x841, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7295174
>The data source is peer reviewed. R. B. Alley, The Younger Dryas cold interview as viewed from central Greenland. Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226

Literally a lie. Here's the link for the paper so that everyone can download it.

http://wikisend.com/download/509016/Alley%202000.pdf

No such figure in the paper. Pic related is the closest figure to the one here >>7293332

They're using super low resolution data (meant to go up to 16 ky, they only plot it to 2000BC, take out the data point so the plot looks smooth).

This is just to show the amount of credibility these denier sites has once someone started to actually peer review their trash

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:44:03 2015 No.7297947

>>7297936
>Believes a trace gas essential to plant life and a logarithmic response curve will kill all humanity.

>because there's not that much of it, we can safely ignore its effects?
confirmed for not any sort of scientist whatsoever, and probably didn't take any science in high school either
>implying Nutbar isn't still in middle school

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:44:47 2015 No.7297949

>>7297927
The predicted temperature rise over the past decade happened. Oh it didn't.
The hot spot in the troposphere over the equator was found. Oh, it wasn't.
Antarctic sea ice would melt. Oh, it didn't.
Snow would become a think of the past. Oh, it didn't.
The arctic ice would be melted by 2013. Oh, it didn't.
Extreme weather would increase. Oh, it hasn't.

Silly me, I thought science was supposed to make successful predictions. But if you don't believe climate change "science" you're a denier, just like a holocaust denier. Wow, anyone who can't take a string of failed predictions as proof of an accurate science is practically a neo-Nazi! Go figure. All religions make a lack of faith a fundamental evil.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:46:15 2015 No.7297950 >>7297945 >The data source The data. I didn't say the graph.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:46:44 2015 No.7297951 >>7297945 fukkin REKT very nicely done, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:50:24 2015 No.7297958 >>7297951 samefag >>7297945 >>7297951

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:52:11 2015 No.7297961

>>7297950
>mmuh nitpicked data points. Not the figure!

> Nitpick a couple data point on a low res ice core record that was initially meant for other purposes without the original author's input to show your point.

Pathetic man. This is why you should go to primary source and not regurtitate junk graphs from "blogs." Check the sources for yourself

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:52:37 2015 No.7297963 >>7297947 OK Captain Science, answer this question. Using the Schwarzschild metric, calculate the scattering cross section of a photon passing the sun.

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:54:10 2015 No.7297964

>>7297950
...so, can you point out where in the paper the data are provided? THEY AREN'T.

>>7297949
Respectively:
It did. The people who say there hasn't been warming since 1998 are measuring from the top of an El Nino spike back then to the baseline (no El Nino effect) today.
The hot spot was never an important prediction. The key prediction was the increase in the lapse rate of the atmosphere indicating that the observed warming was due to a stronger greenhouse effect rather than more intense insolation.
The prediction was that Antarctica would lose ice. It has; the increase in sea ice has been outbalanced by the decrease in land ice.
No such prediction. In fact, climatology suggests greater precipitation (including snowfall) due to warmer oceans putting more moisture into air masses.
No such prediction.
It has. We've been seeing extreme and unseasonable droughts increasing all over the place.

Want people to take you seriously and believe you? Stop making shit up!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:54:31 2015 No.7297965 >>7297939 >actual earth scientists are not accountable for your inability to read the sources shown to you > I can't substantiate a prediction so I'll pretend to point to one. Must feel terrible.

>>	Moose Sun May 31 00:55:47 2015 No.7297967 File: 204 KB, 777x777, laugh1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7297945 #BTFO

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 00:57:13 2015 No.7297970 File: 84 KB, 700x479, ITTIG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7297958 >>>7297951 (You) >samefag >>>7297945 >>>7297951 (You) lel

Anonymous Sun May 31 00:58:28 2015 No.7297972

>>7297964
OH god, I hate the way you Climate bedwetters rewrite history to pretend that your predictions worked. Here's a simple example. The predictions said Antarctic Sea Ice would melt:

1. Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
2. Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model. G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

That failed but you couldn't care less. Any disingenuous rewrite of your failures to pretend they aren't such. Don't ever call yourself a scientist. The correct term is fraud.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:00:16 2015 No.7297976 >>7297970 More samefagging. You get a trophy. >>7297967

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:00:30 2015 No.7297977 >>7297933 IPCC discusses adapting to climate change in, like, a huge-ass section of its report, bro https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ Scroll to adaptation Read the section in Summary for policymakers if you can't be fucked

>>	Moose Sun May 31 01:01:23 2015 No.7297980 File: 65 KB, 322x261, damage control.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7297976

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:03:23 2015 No.7297985 >>7297980 Even more samefagging

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:05:21 2015 No.7297990

>>7297972
...except that Antarctic sea ice extent DID shrink somewhat during the 1990s (when the first cited source was predicting).
and your second source? I'll quote directly.
>The simulated accumulation rate of permanent snow cover decreases markedly over Greenland and increases slightly over Antarctica.
>he can't read, he just skims and posts

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:06:28 2015 No.7297996

>>7297976
Can you defend the content of the argument without reverting back to samefagging damage control?

How is it ethical to cherrypick the last 2000 years out of low res data point meant for 16 ky, then take out all the points on the plot so the plot looks smooth and high res and make a misleading plot like >>7293332

Literally a lie. You should've checked your primary sources m8. Even if you don't have university access, many public library has access to peer review journals.

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:09:46 2015 No.7298001

>>7297985
These posts are mine:
>>7297918
>>7297939
>>7297947
>>7297951
>>7297964
>>7297970
These posts are not:
>>7297980
>>7297967
>>7297945

You're upset that your fallacious arguments and outright lies are being called out, so you're accusing people laughing at you of samefagging. And so far you've been entirely unsuccessful. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.
Say, why do you (despite your alleged opposition to argumentum ad hominem) keep accusing climatologists and other scientists of being bed-wetters? Are you perhaps projecting?

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:12:27 2015 No.7298003

>>7297945
OMFG!!! The paper is right here:
ftp://mtarchive.geol.iastate.edu/data/2005/stuff/504_papers/Younger-Dryas.pdf

And yes, its taken from that graph. And yes it is correct! The scale was changed, so what!
You guys are a bunch of climate bedwetters who will say anything to serve your secular religion!
>>7297967
>>7297970
>>7297980
Not to mention samefags.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:13:22 2015 No.7298006 File: 9 KB, 372x226, did you really think I was samefagging or were you just bullshitting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298001 ayy lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:14:07 2015 No.7298007 >>7293332 The problem isn't the warming itself, it's the rate at which it's warming.

>>	Moose Sun May 31 01:15:15 2015 No.7298008 File: 1.11 MB, 250x250, popcorn.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298003 keep going your implosion is the catharsis i need after this abomination of a thread

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:17:10 2015 No.7298009
File: 42 KB, 565x596, antarctic ice from 1992.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7297990
>somewhat
Look at 1992
>>7297990
Stop wasting my time with your failed predictions and your after the fact excuses.

See pic.
Red = missing ice
Green = more ice

These days its a record levels. Sheesh, you are the embodiment of unfalsifiability.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:19:00 2015 No.7298011 >>7298001 Wah, wah, wah. I still haven't shown a successful prediction (pretend I did by vague referrals). But I"m very good at rewriting history to maintain the unfalsifiability of my pseudo-science. Whatever.

>>	Moose Sun May 31 01:20:11 2015 No.7298013 File: 209 KB, 1680x1172, ice loss .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298009 >continental ice falls into the ocean and becomes sea ice >global warming isnt happening!!! huuuuuurrrrrrrrr

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:21:17 2015 No.7298017

>>7298003
ooh, now you're mad.
yes, that's the same paper we all read. no, the graph isn't in there.
the figures in the actual paper cover the time span from 11.6-11.75 kya, and from 10-16 kya. Please explain how to use those data to plot a graph from 0.095 to 9.925 kya. THE TIME SCALES ARE DISJOINT, ACCORDING TO THE GRAPHS.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:21:30 2015 No.7298018 File: 97 KB, 598x418, Climate Change Cult.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298008 Keep defending your religion! Whatever faith keeps you going.

>>	Moose Sun May 31 01:24:10 2015 No.7298022 File: 44 KB, 445x450, tears are delicious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298011 >>7298018 I needed this

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:25:01 2015 No.7298024 >>7289097 >plants thrive on it • yes, some plants do thrive on it • food-crop plants, not so much • enjoy your crabgrass salad, fgt

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:28:55 2015 No.7298029

>>7298009
>Look at 1992
yes, 1992 was a year that saw a big increase in Antarctic sea ice. it was also the year in which the first paper you cited was published. what a coinkydink!
why would the change in sea ice before their study was published matter? weren't they making predictions looking forward, rather than making models that looked backward (and could presumably be massaged)? and Antarctic sea ice DID fall during the next couple of years!
>he can't read, he just skims and posts

>>7298011
you dismissed the successful prediction last time because you were too stupid to read the methodology and correctly recognize it as a forward-looking prediction reevaluated after the predicted time interval. I'm not going to go to all the trouble of hunting it down for you to dismiss it again.
meanwhile, you were caught right-out lying >>7297945 and keep insisting that the data which are CLEARLY NOT IN THE PAPER indeed came from it. I'm less worried about me not coming up with a paper that pleases your uneducated standards, and more worried about your lack of integrity and honesty.
teal deer: I'm not the one posting falsified data and claiming it's from a respected peer-reviewed article, so shut your whore mouth while billy mays is talking dot bee em pee

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:29:39 2015 No.7298030 >>7298011 >Vague It's the fucking IPCC report. Anyone who has any interest in climate change would know about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:29:40 2015 No.7298031 File: 21 KB, 345x345, durr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289961 >the internet were grammar nazis should go get there PHD in english poetry and not come bak

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:35:05 2015 No.7298035 >>7298017 Yeah, obviously, Mr. Lappi gave the wrong reference. However the basic shape is accurate, see, e.g., here: http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/feb/14feb2012a1.html

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:36:39 2015 No.7298037 >>7298029 The stench of failure.

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:42:15 2015 No.7298045

Scientist here. Actual phd researcher, not some engineering goon who thinks undergrad and a couple certification tests make him a world expert.

If you're making an argument without any valid data, you're full of shit.

If you don't believe data because scientists receive money to conduct research I beg you to please quit receiving any modern medical care both for your ideology and for the good of our species upon your removal

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:44:16 2015 No.7298046

Moose, this is just delightful.

>>7298035
aw geez THAT GRAPH IS FROM 4 kya to 0 kya. AND YOU EXPECT US TO USE THAT AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 0.095-9.925 kya GRAPH?
more importantly, the graph you just cited is in significant disagreement with the earlier one, with regard to the position and magnitude of the few spikes I could visually crossmatch. (I am not a computer. I cannot look at two messy graphs with different scales side by side and make perfect sense of them.)

Also, if Mr. Lappi really did just give the wrong reference (as opposed to actively lying), how stupid is he? I mean seriously, how hard is it to write down where you actually got your data from? If you're copying the data set down, you should have the title easily at hand, right? Don't crap in my coffee and tell me it's nutmeg.

Who's "say[ing] anything to serve [one's] secular religion!" NOW, nutbar?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:46:39 2015 No.7298050 >>7298037 The qualia of "I don't have a rebuttal to the argument he's making, so I'll just tell him he's wrong and see how that goes". The tulpa of tomfoolery.

Moose Sun May 31 01:51:27 2015 No.7298053
File: 783 KB, 1023x681, zzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7298035
>http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/feb/14feb2012a1.html

Website run by "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"
From wikipedia:
The Center does not discuss their funding, saying, "we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them."[3]

According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[4] Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.[5] ExxonMobil stated it funded, "organizations which research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company. [...] These organizations do not speak on our behalf, nor do we control their views and messages."[6]

Entirely credible source :^)

Anonymous Sun May 31 01:53:27 2015 No.7298056

>>7298046
Mouse, you're pathetic. Mr. Lappi makes a bad reference and you think that proves Climate Change is TRUE! Meanwhile, countless "scientists" make failed predictions and that's OK, because we'll twist them into an excuse. Honestly, your faith makes me ill.

You completely failed to provide a substantive prediction. So all you can do is harp on Mr. Lappi because he screwed up. Your "look over there" tactic is meaningless. Just admit your faith in an unflasifiable dogma.

Speaking of lying with data, see pic. You guys are things kings of lying with data

Sorry wacko, stop trying to destroy our economy with your secular faith.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:54:47 2015 No.7298060 File: 17 KB, 430x547, hide_the_decline email.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298046 Them climate scientists, paragons of honesty

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:56:50 2015 No.7298068 File: 19 KB, 508x516, Climategate Warming Erase.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298046 OK wackjob, more climate change "science" honesty in action.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:57:52 2015 No.7298069 File: 25 KB, 718x345, Climategate Cooling Erase.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298046 And more climate science honesty

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:58:44 2015 No.7298071 >>7298056 >>7298046 The fuck is "Mr" Lappi?? Is he your sugardaddy? Did he pay you to shitpost on chinese imageboard? https://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-lappi/10/456/6

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:58:47 2015 No.7298072 >>7290878 cec

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 01:59:15 2015 No.7298074 File: 74 KB, 550x413, Global Alteration.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298046 Wackjobs rewriting the temperature history so we'll accept the religion of greenie-socialism. Thanks climate bedwetters.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 02:06:40 2015 No.7298083 File: 191 KB, 640x1024, giss 2011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298056 pic here

Anonymous Sun May 31 02:20:15 2015 No.7298104
File: 143 KB, 833x696, 1389399799301.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7298053
I'm the guy who BTFO'd the denier by fact checking his shit and to be fair, the paper cited is legit (actually I do personally know some of the authors).

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/publications/Kobashi_2011_GRL.pdf

However, if any of you want to just skim the paper quickly please read the last part: "5.3. Present Temperature in the Context of the Past
4000 Yr." The authors conclude that according to their dataset, the current decade has not exceed natural variability within the last 4000 years. The authors however put multiple caveats: 1. His proxy records annual T and winter T in greenland is highly variable 2. This dataset focus on Greenland site only, does not reflect other area. 3. There is still uncertainty with regards to inversion in the convective column of the snow that the author outright admit he didn't take into account.

This
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/feb/14feb2012a1.html

however, is highly unethical because it spins the authors' result and omitting the caveats that they themselves put in the paper.

But peer reviewed data is peer reviewed data, and in my knowledge these Ar/N2 datasets have not been refuted yet. hope even in an anonymous chinese imageboard amidst all the shiposting we can understand the nuances in arguing about climate and be open minded to new data

Anonymous Sun May 31 02:42:23 2015 No.7298151

>>7298056
>Mr. Lappi makes a bad reference and you think that proves Climate Change is TRUE!
No, it means that Mr. Lappi's graph isn't reliable, and people who make arguments based on the graph (let alone attempt to minimize its flaws) should be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion and skepticism. I'll leave the proving to the thousands of climatologists and their mountains upon mountains of data.

>>7298060
>>7298068
>>7298069
Ahhh, "hide the decline" again. Do you realize how thoroughly that's been debunked by this point? You take the context and meaning away from jargon and tell people what it means. Cute, but this one's getting stale.

>>7298074
[citation needed]
>>7298083
perfectly valid adjustment based on changes in where weather stations are located and when temperature is measured. not my problem if you're too lazy to read the methodology and justification. snore, we've been over this before.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 02:44:50 2015 No.7298156 >>7298151 The fuck is "Mr." Lappi man?

Anonymous Sun May 31 02:45:46 2015 No.7298158
File: 643 KB, 1946x1146, Eddie Murphy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7298104
you make a good point. it's honestly problematic that the occasional actual skeptics (people playing devil's advocate, people looking for problems in the models and theory to keep researchers on their toes and make them tighten up their work) are drowned out by the vast sea of "skeptics". we should have some actual criticism that's not based in a badly flawed and highly incomplete understanding of the science and motivated by belief in a conspiracy theory.

Anonymous Sun May 31 02:48:59 2015 No.7298164

>>7288716
Yes. There is more than 90% consensus that we are going through a period of climate change and that its caused by humans. Mostly from cattle farming and cards.

Carbon alone does not raise the temperature by much but a very small raise in temperature causes water to evaporate into the atmosphere and water is a very good at warming the air

Anonymous Sun May 31 02:49:10 2015 No.7298166

>>7298156
well, the graph is attributed to one David Lappi. by the name, I assume that said person is male, and in the absence of evidence otherwise, I assume that he does not hold a doctorate. I've no idea who he is, but it takes less explaining to call him "Mr. Lappi" than to call him "that one dude who faked the graph that the nutbar is now frantically defending".

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 02:54:39 2015 No.7298171 >>7298104 so is climate change mankind's fault or not you fucking mongoloid?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 02:56:10 2015 No.7298174 >>7298171 not that guy, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say: "yes, but there are still things we don't entirely understand"

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 02:59:47 2015 No.7298178 File: 335 KB, 400x805, schwarz_hitler.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298174 then there's only one possible solution

Anonymous Sun May 31 03:05:22 2015 No.7298185

>>7298171
Currently? Yes. There is indisputable evidence both on the basic first principle physics (net radiation in satellite, GHG properties of the gases confirmed in labs) that people put CO2 in the atmosphere and it is causing net radiative imbalance and make the overall planet warmer.

Obviously there is still some uncertainty, especially with the nitty gritty details on climate model but the fundamental theory is very robust. Many climate scientists including me believe that the consequence of inaction given what we know today is so severe that we need to do something even if there is still some uncertainty.

Scientists like
>>7298069
>>7298068
>>7298060
are very cynical (but justifiably so). In /sci/ a lot of time we cringe about public opinion all the time (50% Americans believe that God play a role in Superbowl) and they're unwilling to be open about the uncertainties and discuss it in public because they think the general public is too dumb or have too little time to care and can be so easily misled.

I can think of 3 very concrete examples where scientists push for policy change even without complete understanding of the entire complex system:

1. Banning the use of DDT to conserve the American Eagle. There were initially a lot of uncertainties, it might be due to habitat, hunting yada2, but the biologists were pushing really hard and once the government banned DDT American Eagle population rebounded quickly

(cont'd)

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:10:51 2015 No.7298195 >>7298164 >>7298171 Don't be fooled by oil companies and politicians

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:17:21 2015 No.7298209 >>7297605 Source?

Anonymous Sun May 31 03:20:21 2015 No.7298215
File: 516 KB, 552x592, animation.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7298185
2. Banning the Lead in gasoline. Also there is a some uncertainty on the health effects of lead. Clair Patterson stood up against the entire automobile industry and the positive effect of banning lead in gasoline and children's toys are undeniable nowadays.

3. Banning the use of CFC in air conditioner. As a trained atmospheric chemist, this is very interesting to me. Back in the 70s, climate scientists literally wrote the catalytic ozone destruction very theoretically on a piece of paper. There is no lab experiment whatsoever. All they have is fundamental chemistry and atmospheric chemistry model that fits the observation of the ozone hole. They lobby really hard, based on their conviction that the ozone hole is in grave danger and fortunately the chemical companies managed to synthesize a replacement compound, HCFC and HFC so there is also an incentive for the chemical companies to ban CFC so more people will buy the newer air conditioning units.

Catalytic ozone destruction has never been observed experimetally in real life atmosphere nor even in laboratory test tube when they passed the Montreal protocol. But now we see and observe the obvious result that the ozone hole is recovering nicely following chemical model prediction.

The situation now is the same. We don't have complete understanding of the entire earth climate system and its response, but the fundamental hypothesis is more robust than any of the 3 examples I mentioned above. You should think of climate change intervention policy as similar to decision making in war. You won't have 100% absolute certainty, but there is a time when "we know enough" and it is time for real action

Moose Sun May 31 03:24:07 2015 No.7298219

>>7298104
>hope even in an anonymous chinese imageboard amidst all the shiposting we can understand the nuances in arguing about climate and be open minded to new data

For sure. I'm an Engineer, so defenitly not an expert on climate. But I know enough to understand the fundamentals, and I am aware of the climate change that appears to already be happening. The climate models won't be validated until its to late to make a change. I hope that the predicted warming is overestimated, but waiting to make a change until we know 100% the forcing that CO2 causes seems extremely foolish.

Cheers.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:29:03 2015 No.7298224 >/sci/ is still divided on AGW This is why /sci/ is the least scientific science board on the internet. I hope we debate vaccines and GMOs next!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:30:51 2015 No.7298225 >>7298224 Actually there is only one unrelenting denier shitposter who got BTFO'd to oblivion and everyone is laughing at him throwing tantrum

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:30:58 2015 No.7298226 >>7298185 >>7298215 B T F O T F O

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:32:02 2015 No.7298228 >>7298215 would it be worth the resources and capital to try and slow global warming? agriculture produces more C02 than transportation as I understand

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:33:56 2015 No.7298230 File: 17 KB, 437x396, sources-industry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298228 Not according to the EPA

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 03:34:45 2015 No.7298233 >>7298219 >The climate models won't be validated until its to late to make a change Chances are there will be no one left alive to feel validated.

Anonymous Sun May 31 03:48:45 2015 No.7298240

>>7298228
>would it be worth the resources and capital to try and slow global warming?

Unfortunately this is where my job as a scientists end. I'm generally very averse to advocating any particular policy. It literally depends on where you are. If you're Russia, Alaska, or Greenland the benefits of climate change opening up the Northwest Passage and freeing up your mineral resources and fertilizing your land is undeniable.

If you live in LA, then good luck with the drought. If you live in Pacific island nation, better save up for scuba diving gear.

Problem with mitigating climate change is that the profits are made by small amount of people (Russians for example, who now have more fertile land) and the downsides are felt by everyone (sea level rise). Same with pollution for example. Say I own a factory that causes air pollution. To comply with regulation standard, I need to spend $1 million out of my pocket. I breathe the same air as everyone does, but it is worth it for me to inhale shittier air because I get to save $1 million and distribute the downsides equally among the population.

As long as the public and politicians know the facts about climate change and can debate it logically, my job is done. They can duke it out on the mitigation policy however they want, it's not my problem

Anonymous Sun May 31 03:55:55 2015 No.7298245

>>7298240

It is your problem, because 'experts' like you are almost always hired by politicians who already have an agenda to push.

If an asteroid was heading towards earth and we needed to come up with a contingency to avert disaster, I sure as fuck hope it would astrophysicists and mechanical engineers making the decisions rather than uneducated cretins in Washington. Forget the morally loaded question of what SHOULD we do. Answer the question of what the best course of action would be. If you're in a hospital dying of some illness you ultimately get to decide what kind of treatment you want or don't want, but any doctor worth his degree is going to say 'I strongly recommend' etc. And if his recommendation turns out to have been bad advise, his credibility as a physician ought to take a hit.

That's the problem with so-called experts. They want all the credit when their suggestions pan out but none of the accountability if they don't; or they simple choose, as you do, to reserve judgment and present the facts, content to let people who are less well informed than them decide what is ultimately done about a very pressing issue.

Anonymous Sun May 31 04:08:19 2015 No.7298253

>>7298245
But I'm not an economist. I know jack shit about economic theory and how any mitigation policy would impact anything.

I think climate scientists should duke it out in science arena of peer review journals and make the best prediction of scenarios we can. That's all in IPCC AR5 Chapter I : "Physical Science Basis." With 259 authors from 39 countries

"Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" is addressed in IPCC AR5 Chapter 2. I think it's more of a job of an economist and public health experts to plan the mitigation aspect of it, given that they understand all the fundamental facts first. So as long as the 308 authors from 70 countries who wrote the 2nd chapter are familiar with the fundamental science, then it's their job to come up with a coherent mitigation plan.

Anonymous Sun May 31 05:49:24 2015 No.7298367

>>7298253
>I think it's more of a job of an economist and public health experts to plan the mitigation aspect of it
Is it? If the overwhelming majority of climatologists told them that at current rate Earth will warm by 4 degrees and it will cause a catastrophic mass extinction that will end human civilisation and perhaps the species as well, economists would laugh in their face and do nothing. No amout of expertise bears any weight if people don't want to believe something to be true.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 06:40:06 2015 No.7298432 File: 53 KB, 768x498, OCO2_map_termites_75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7298209 >Source? NASA, Science, Nov. 5, 1982

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 09:14:23 2015 No.7298630 >>7289086 I think what he's trying to say is "it doesn't matter if we release carbon into our planet as it originally came from out planet!"

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 11:34:05 2015 No.7298888 File: 17 KB, 518x150, schneider_scary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bump limit exceeded?

Anonymous Sun May 31 14:16:03 2015 No.7299196

>>7298432
but that's wrong, you fucking retard
the paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.short)) suggests 50 GT of CO2 per year from termites. human activity produces about 33 GT of CO2 per year.

also, the "human activity produces less greenhouse gases than natural processes" bit is a distraction, and you know it. here's why (with made-up hypothetical numbers):

without humans: 500 GT of greenhouse gases produced, 500 GT of greenhouse gases absorbed by sinks
with humans: 510 GT of greenhouse gases produced, 500 GT of greenhouse gases absorbed by sinks

Note that because the biosphere as a whole sits in a sort of dynamic equilibrium, natural sources are just about balanced out by natural sinks. when humans cause a relatively small increase in production, it's enough to throw the whole system out of balance.

Anonymous Sun May 31 14:31:00 2015 No.7299233

>>7298888
bump limit exceeded, and nice cherrypicking of that quote. here's the context:

>On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

>This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

cute

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 17:51:32 2015 No.7299604 International Politically Correct Climatology (who pays the piper calls the tune)

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 19:14:33 2015 No.7299743 >>7299604 >implying a majority of the world's leaders want to risk climate change investment when it will lead to negative press about them because it hurts the economy >implying conservative leaders even acknowledge it is an issue

Anonymous Sun May 31 19:51:22 2015 No.7299821

>>7298046
What do you know. You, "Moose," and the rest of your merry band of Gish Gallopers:
>>7297945
>>7297951
>>7297970
>>7298008
>>7298022
>>7298046
The reference on this graph:
>>7293332
refers to the data source associated with the paper, the reference site is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html
The data is at the link labeled: greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Namely: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

That link does not work, but this one does:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Take the first two columns of age/temperature data from that link. Specifically, the first 10,000 years of data.
Import into Excel (or software of your choice) and graph temperature vs. time. Reverse the direction of time.
And you get this exact graph:
>>7293332

So there it is. There was no deception and no lying and no phony data. Just data from the NOAA.
How delightful! >>7298046 You, "moose," and the rest of you caught in a rabid but false over-reacting because you've been
brainwashed into thinking that anybody who doesn't adhere to the warmist agenda is an evil oil-paid shill.
You owe an apology to the memory of Mr. Lappi. You owe an apology to Joanne Nova. Shame on you!

>>	Anonymous Sun May 31 20:16:37 2015 No.7299856 >>7299821 The original data source web page for the paper is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

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