/sci/ - Science & Math

[Shekelstien No.8116519]

>climate change denial has scientific support

[Anonymous No.8117253]

>>8116519
>100% of scientists believe aids is real
>therefore jewish reptilian illuminati created aids to punish homosexuals
I'm not even denying manmade climate change, but you're arguing against a strawman.
Global warming is something that can be observed. Human involvement in it is the thing that people are sceptic of.

[Anonymous No.8117259]

>>8117253
You are changing the subject. There have clearly been claims that global warming itself is not happening, and that this is just the natural wavering of temperature over centuries.

I love how the most vocal fuckers are constantly conflating different subjects. It's just like anti-evolution switching subject to abiogenesis. I don't care what you believe and am open to discussion, but please keep your topics straight.

[Anonymous No.8117263]

>>8117253
No we deny temperature rising too, tons of corruption and modified data has been proved, while the only "real" data we have, satellite data show no rise in temperature in the last 18 years.

[Anonymous No.8117267]

>>8117253
Human involvement itself is fairly uncontroversial. That carbon dioxide and methane contribute to the greenhouse effect is not under debate.

Exactly how much of it is due to human activity, and whether or not this will present significant problems to human society, is. We still struggle to put together models with any predictive capability.
The alarmism is largely unwarranted

[Anonymous No.8117268]

>>8117259
>global warming itself is not happening, and that this is just the natural wavering of temperature over centuries
According to your definition of "global warming", that sentence means they reject global warming because it's actually just global warming.
The only way for that sentence to make sense is if climate change deniers believe that manmade global warming isn't a thing and that global warming is just natural.

[Anonymous No.8117277]

>>8117268
I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding the distinction between overall trend and fluctuation. Others in the thread have submitted opinions that agree with my analysis of the debate.

[Anonymous No.8117282]

>>8117277
"natural wavering of temperature over centuries" is in fact an overall trend given that's the size of the timespan being observed for global warming.

[Anonymous No.8117285]

>>8117282
You could call it an overall zero trend. "Global warming" is a positive trend.

[Anonymous No.8117288]

sure does smell like a /pol/ thread a-brewin

[Anonymous No.8117301]

>>8117267
>Exactly how much of it is due to human activity, and whether or not this will present significant problems to human society, is.
There's a pretty broad consensus that between 80-120% of the temperature rise over the last 50 years is due to human activity.

>The alarmism is largely unwarranted
If by "alarmism" you mean silly shit like Hollywood movies then sure. If you're talking about the IPCC reports though, then that seems like a rather large claim.

>>8117263
>the only "real" data we have, satellite data
Without even touching how absurd the whole "data manipulation" argument is, you do realise that satellite observations are some of the most heavily adjusted datasets out there? They don't even measure the surface temperature, for goodness sake.

>>8117288
>sure does smell like a /pol/ thread a-brewin
It's hardly subtle, is it?

[Anonymous No.8117311]

Oh, it's you again.
>Must be aliens!

[Anonymous No.8117316]

>>8116519
Of course it does because climate change "science" is biased in favor of the opinion that we somehow fucked up the earth. Why is that? Because you can get grants and shit to "study" it. It's all complete bullshit. If scientists say there isn't a problem, the money and attention goes away. Scientists have a strong financial interest in pushing the climate change agenda.

[Anonymous No.8117317]

This is all bullshit propaganda so they make virtual jobs, get funded and use scientist to do the hardwork.

[Anonymous No.8117357]

>>8117316
>Why is that? Because you can get grants and shit to "study" it.
Grants aren't handed out on the basis of conclusions.

>If scientists say there isn't a problem, the money and attention goes away.
If a scientist showed that everything we know about climatology (or any other field) was wrong, they would quickly become very famous and have no trouble gaining funding.

[Anonymous No.8117452]

>>8117357
>If a scientist showed that everything we know about climatology (or any other field) was wrong, they would quickly become very famous and have no trouble gaining funding.
>implying that people would believe one study
>implying that that study would pass peer review. the reviewing scientists can only lose out from such a result

[Anonymous No.8117465]

>>8117452
>implying that people would believe one study
If it didn't directly contradict all the other studies, and further work confirmed the mechanisms it was based on? Yeah, one study could definitely be enough to start.

>implying that that study would pass peer review. the reviewing scientists can only lose out from such a result
That's not how peer review works.
In any case, counter-consensus papers getting through peer review is nothing new; peer review is generally a pretty course filter, intended to throw out papers with glaring errors.

[Anonymous No.8117489]

>>8117465
No one believes one experiment that hasn't been reproduced. its just not how science is done man.

>That's not how peer review works.
Im not telling you thats how its supposed to be done. im telling you that it can be done. Had a prof in first year uni that was asked to try to pull some strings to get a paper through peer review. It wasn't accepted because it asserted that Maxwell's equations were wrong, not because the paper itself was flawed

Not this anon: >>8117316 and don't think its realistic but his conspiracy theory isnt totally nonsense

[Anonymous No.8117496]

>>8117253
Geology student here.
No, there is no question anymore the source of CO2 is well known.

Carbon-13 is a stable isotope of Carbon (no, not Carbon-14, that's radioactive). Life prefers Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 because the lighter atom is easier to use in biological processes. As life consumes Carbon a greater abundance of Carbon-13 is left behind in the atmosphere. Life is not even aware it's doing it. It's simply a consequence of living processes naturally preferring one over the other as it's easier to work with.

Non biological processes which lock Carbon into rock, such as dissolved CaCO3 in water precipitating into Carbonate rocks doesn't care. So when a source rock releases Carbon back into the atmosphere, such as through dissolving inorganically precipitated Carbonate rock or through the breakdown of coal we know damned well where the Carbon came from by the abundance of Carbon-13.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasingly coming from biological source rock, IE coal.

Arguing against anthropogenic climate change at this point is uneducated and unscientific.

Oh, here, I found an article written by NOAA for education.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html

[Anonymous No.8117511]

> 24 reject global warming
> 0 support global warming

[Anonymous No.8117543]

>>8117301
>80-120% of the temperature rise over the last 50 years

>>8117496
>education
Proselytizing

[Anonymous No.8117551]

>>8117543
You sure showed him with your epic reaction image and calling his source proselytizing instead of refuting any of the explanations or data!

>>>/pol/ is probably a more suitable board for brainlets like you

[Anonymous No.8117556]

>>8116519
You could also say that if there were any more than 24 which rejected global warming having been written, they weren't let through the review process.

[Anonymous No.8117561]

inb4 a bunch of unlabeled memegraphs and a list of papers rejecting climate change (because deniers don't understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data).

>>8117496
fellow geofag here, can confirm this for truth
>http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/geol330/Quay%201992.pdf

[Anonymous No.8117571]

>>8116519
>24 peer reviewed climate articles reject global warming

If people wrote 24 peer reviewed articles disproving any other theory in any other field, the theory would be discredited.

[Anonymous No.8117583]

>>8117571
weeell it's a good thing then that nobody's actually published a conclusive disproof of global warming.
it is at this point just a bunch of papers making predictions to the effect of "I don't think so, Tim"

[Anonymous No.8117585]

So where's the evidence ?

[Anonymous No.8117591]

>>8117585
thats the mystery

[Anonymous No.8117593]

> global warming meme
back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8117599]

>>8117561
Bookmarked

[Anonymous No.8117602]

>>8117301
>If you're talking about the IPCC reports though, then that seems like a rather large claim.

Didn't the IPCC go on record saying that they would push global warming regardless of whether it was true or not because ''it's the right thing to do''?
>inb4 source
Don't have it on hand. I think it was something published in Forbes.

[Anonymous No.8117616]

>>8117301
>Without even touching how absurd the whole "data manipulation" argument is
> satellite observations are some of the most heavily adjusted datasets out there

Am I missing something here?

[Anonymous No.8117623]

lmao these retards are preaching about the global warming is bringing the end of the world while its snowing in UK.

[Anonymous No.8117628]

>>8117623
libruls say the titanic is sinking but my end is 200 feet in the air

stupid liberals are wrong again!

[Anonymous No.8117631]

>>8116519

there are 133 papers published in January-March 2016 supporting a skeptical-of-the-consensus position:

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/

last year there were 282 papers, and 248 papers in 2014 (see links on the right of the page)

[Anonymous No.8117632]

that's right m8s
we need more funding for meme sciences like climate and geology instead of physics

[Anonymous No.8117636]

>>8117628
yeah. strawmanning with dumb memes is the extent of your argumentative skills.

Back to >>>/x/ and your happenings faggot

[Anonymous No.8117667]

>>8117631
The first two in the list are from pay to publish predator journals and the third is from a fake peer review site which only publishes skeptic papers. This is the best you can come up with in response to 24 *peer reviewed* skeptic papers?

[Anonymous No.8117668]

>>8117623
GLOBAL WARMING KEKS BTFO
SNOW CONFIRMED IN ENGLAND

[Anonymous No.8117670]

>>8117253
>not even denying manmade climate change
>Human involvement in it is the thing that people are sceptic of
pick one

stop contradicting yourself, tinfoil asshat.

you're an embarrassment to climate change denial

[Anonymous No.8117671]

>>8117670
...are you retarded or do you just suck at comprehending english?

[Anonymous No.8117673]

>>8117631
aaand thanks for confirming half of my prediction >>8117561
>muh list of papers
do you realize that loads of them don't actually reject the consensus like you claim they do? examples:

Hassan et al., "Sunspots and ENSO relationship using Markov method"
>solar variability relates to ENSO cycles

Gray et al., "Eleven-year solar cycle signal in the NAO and Atlantic/European blocking"
>the eleven-year cycle of solar activity is reflected in an eleven-year cycle of climatic fluctuations here on earth with about a one year lag time

Ball et al., "High solar cycle spectral variations inconsistent with stratospheric ozone observations"
>our model of how solar UV output messes with the ozone layer needs some tweaking to be accurate

Basically, it's one paper rejecting the consensus that was published in a fake journal run by a predatory publisher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group)), one that legitimately rejects the consensus and was good enough to be published in an actual journal, one paper that was literally just typed up for someone's climate-denial blog (http://www.tech-know-group.com/)) and was never actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then it's papers that don't take a position on the consensus one way or another.
~90% of the papers are literally just taking the position that "fluctuations in solar activity mess with atmospheric patterns in X respect" without coming CLOSE to claiming that solar activity is responsible for current warming.

if that's your "evidence" that those darned scientists have it all wrong...well, consider suicide, or at least spending an hour in the Shame Cube.

[Anonymous No.8117680]

>>8117671
>I'm not saying manmade climate change isn't real
>I'm just saying it's not manmade
ᎳᎬᎳ ᏞᎪᎠ

[Anonymous No.8117689]

>>8117668
oh man look at all these snow. it surely proves global warming because it actually snows when its warm :^)

[Anonymous No.8117690]

>>8117673
SCIRP is not legitimate.

[Anonymous No.8117700]

>>8117690
ooh, good catch. the journal name checked out okay, but I didn't check up on the publishing company.
yeah, that brings the total in that list of actually skeptical papers published in legitimate journals to...zero, maybe? not sure, there might be one or two further down the list but I CBA to find them

[Anonymous No.8119648]

bump to remind people that the "skeptics" don't actually have any supporting evidence >>8117631

[Anonymous No.8120656]

>>8117561
inb4 a bunch of unlabeled memegraphs and a list of papers rejecting climate change (because deniers don't understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data).

>nb4 But our plural anecdote is different!

11,944 papers. And only 36 stated that the Climate Change hypothesis was accurate. 0.3%, nothing but a tiny anecdote. That's definitely not data.

[Anonymous No.8120675]

>>8116519
If someone manages to successfully falsify a theory, then it only takes one paper for that theory to be thrown out.

That being said, content matters here, and I'm sure those 24 papers aren't substantive enough to discredit climate change.

[Anonymous No.8120678]

>>8120656
Geology student here again. You don't read much Earth Science papers do you? I would suggest trying to read a few. It's not even brought up anymore because there's no point in bringing it up. The data is already in.

For example, I wrote a paper for my sedimentology class last year on this paper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715304599

Which never claims Climate Change is accurate, it assumes the reader isn't a goddamned uneducated fuck-off and already knows it.

Explain this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/full/nature02524.html

When you can we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.8120679]

>>8117636
>yeah. strawmanning with dumb memes is the extent of your argumentative skills.

Not him, but I don't see a strawman argument here. You're extrapolating wildly from extremely incomplete data, which is the same thing that someone would do by claiming that the titanic is rising.

[Anonymous No.8120681]

>>8117673
>Hassan et al., "Sunspots and ENSO relationship using Markov method"
>>solar variability relates to ENSO cycles
Sun relates to ENSO, ENSO is a major cause of global temperature variability. See pic. Therefore climate change is true!

>Gray et al., "Eleven-year solar cycle signal in the NAO and Atlantic/European blocking"
>>the eleven-year cycle of solar activity is reflected in an eleven-year cycle of climatic fluctuations here on earth with about a one year lag time
As above.

>Ball et al., "High solar cycle spectral variations inconsistent with stratospheric ozone observations"
>>our model of how solar UV output messes with the ozone layer needs some tweaking to be accurate
Models of solar variability used in climate models are wrong. But climate change is still true!

Oh my that graph of University of Alabama, Huntsville data, Remote Sensing Systems data and the Nino 3.4 index data taken from
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
http://woodfortrees.org/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Nino34/
respectively, doesn't carry the UN Climate Change SEAL OF APPROVAL, therefore I can ignore it, and maintain my faith.

[Anonymous No.8120696]

>>8117496
Geofag here as well.
I can back this up, he's right you know.

[Anonymous No.8120699]

>>8116519
relevant and profound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5RYBGJDCAI

[Anonymous No.8120700]

>>8120678
My apologies, although the other is a decent article, what I meant to share was this
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.abstract

[Anonymous No.8120711]

>>8117301
>Without even touching how absurd the whole "data manipulation" argument is,
are you too retarded to realize that people can edit some values in matlab?

[Anonymous No.8120717]

>>8120711
>are you too retarded to realize that people can edit some values in matlab?

How do you think replicability works? Climate science happens in countries all across the world. Why aren't foreign scientists recording drastically different numbers?

[Anonymous No.8120729]

>>8116519
>>8117561
PLEASE, OH PLEASE DO NOT LOOK AT THIS LIST OF PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT DEBUNK CLIMATE CHANGE MYTHOLOGY.

Only IPCC Certified for Truth papers count as real papers, all else is just anecdote.

Reference Lists of Skeptical Papers
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis. Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112

Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in
the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes
during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise
in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of
tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

[Anonymous No.8120733]

>>8120729
>>8116519
>>8117561
PLEASE, OH PLEASE DO NOT LOOK AT THIS LIST OF PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT DEBUNK CLIMATE CHANGE MYTHOLOGY.

Only IPCC Certified for Truth papers count as real papers, all else is just anecdote.

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D
Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in
the mean temperature which preceded it.

[Anonymous No.8120735]

>>8120733
>>8116519
>>8117561
PLEASE, OH PLEASE DO NOT LOOK AT THIS LIST OF PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT DEBUNK CLIMATE CHANGE MYTHOLOGY.
Only IPCC Certified for Truth papers count as real papers, all else is just anecdote.

h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313
(2006)p.452-454

Suggests the Dvorak technique, developed to estimate hurricane strength, was not
available in the late 1960s and early 1970s or before, when some of the hurricanes and
tropical cyclones may have been stronger than estimated.

i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” M- C Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS
Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006

Suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal
increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 to 2004.

j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V
Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Presents a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over
geological times. The present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in
the earth’s geologic history. Human activity (anthropogenic green house gas emission)
may be responsible for only 0.01°C of the approximately 0.56°C warming of the 20th
century.

[Anonymous No.8120752]

>>8120729
Skeptical papers from 2015
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/

[Anonymous No.8120763]

>>8120729
Stop posting papers you never read.

EXPLAIN THE DATA.

The data:

The stratosphere is cooling while the atmosphere is heating

C-12 in the atmosphere is increasing while percentage of C-13 is decreasing

Nights are warming faster than days
http://csanr.wsu.edu/summer-nights-are-getting-hotter/

More than 98% of glaciers are retreating even in winter
>>8120699

Science is about explaining the data. So explain it.

[Anonymous No.8120767]

Serious question:
I am aware that climate change is undeniably a thing, I am also aware the atmospheric co2 is increasing and the source is clearly humans, now aside from the clear correlation is it firmly established that climate change is resulting from increased manmade co2 and not other factors?

[Anonymous No.8120776]

>>8120763
>explain it
You can watch almost all glaciers melt in human-scale time via time-lapse photography. This is largely unprecedented, and viscerally dramatic.

[Anonymous No.8120827]

>>8120678
>Geology student here again. You don't read much Earth Science papers do you? I
What do you call a (untenured) geology professor who denies climate change?
Unemployed!

Not impressed by the rule of the mode, nor the appeal to popularity.

And cut this crap out.

Explain this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/full/nature02524.html
or this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.abstract

>When you can we'll talk.
Oh he's a tough guy. Stop hiding behind pal-reviewed references and its inherent appeal-to-authority. Peer review is broken. State the scientific argument and preferably show the data. Pal review is crap.

>stratospheric cooling over the 34-y satellite temperature record.

Nice cherry pick. No stratospheric cooling for 20 years despite a huge 1/3 all the world's anthropogenic CO2 being emitted during that time. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.8120833]

>>8120827
>>8120678
>>8120763
The stratosphere is cooling while the atmosphere is heating
Absolutely false.
> sustained global-scale tropospheric warming
Damn that's funny! The troposphere is warming because the RSS tampered the data! Warming doesn't show in UAH data (El Nino is weather buddy, about to be followed by a strong La Nina, is that climate?). Pic related.
This data fraud was predicted more than a year ago:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/collusion-is-independence/
Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

RSS Caves to Warmist Pressure:


What did RSS do to get the "right outcome"? They include bad data from a drifting satellite. Their paper was so bad that it was rejected from its first submission. And Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy (inventors of Satellite temperature taking) comment, ” The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.
From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c. They just leave it in."

See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

[Anonymous No.8120842]

>>8120827
>>8120678
>>8120763
The stratosphere is cooling while the atmosphere is heating
Absolutely false.

And that paper with Santer is pure hypocrisy. He already wrote a paper that said 17 years of a pause was enough. Then proceeded to completely ignore it. As I've said before:

There has been no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. 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

No warming during 17 years: 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 No.8120897]

>>8120763
C-12 in the atmosphere is increasing while percentage of C-13 is decreasing
Rubbish. "Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning (~60 GtC vs. 8 GtC, with about the same average d13C level)." Roy Spencer, evil denier.

And the mass change of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't correspond to anthropogenic emissions. Pic related, source is: Jaworowski 1997. CO2 has a 5 year atmospheric half life, rendering that impossible. Here's a few of MANY references.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.


>Nights are warming faster than days
More urbanization, more people turn on their heaters in winter. Gosh, who would have known?

[Anonymous No.8120901]

Yeah it's ironic that real climate scientists succumbed to political pressure, the pressure of screeching deniers, and possibly other pressures and came out saying that 'the pause' was possibly more than variance.

And then immediately after they did that, extreme 2016 temperature anomalies began to appear which showed 'the pause' disappearing into the statistical nothingness from which it arose.

I'll bet some of those scientists are feeling a little bit foolish right about now.

[Anonymous No.8120904]

>>8120897
>More urbanization, more people turn on their heaters in winter. Gosh, who would have known?
Especially at night when its coldest.

[Anonymous No.8120921]

>>8120897
Tell you what, you keep going with your gish gallop of obscure cherry picked papers you grabbed directly from denier websites. And I'm going to go with the fucking scientific evidence and theory which overwhelmingly supports exactly what the scientists (but not necessarily the politicians) are saying. Deal?

[Anonymous No.8120925]

>>8120763
>>8120897
>98% of Glaciers.
Do glaciers only melt if heat is anthropogenic?
German Geologist: "Glaciers are not melting faster than ever"
http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/23/german-geology-expert-glaciers-are-not-melting-faster-than-ever-requests-statement-from-deutsche-welle/

[Anonymous No.8120930]

>>8120901
Why do all "corrections" to global temperature data monotonically increase the rate of warming? Pure coincidence?

German professor finds NASA data is massively tampered:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/

Let me guess, he doesn't count as a scientist because he doesn't have the blessing of the IPCC?

[Anonymous No.8120948]

>>8120930
I'm already convinced by the fucking science, evidence and theory, which overwhelmingly supports AGW. I'm not chasing down your flaky ass links. You're going to have bring something a lot more compelling than your cobbled together pieces of denier bullshit to sway my mind in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.8120961]

>>8120930
If you honestly believe what you've been told (cause you sure didn't come up with it yourself, you just swallowed it hook line and sinker), that there's a global conspiracy of scientists to fake AGW, because they're greedy and they want more money.. well I've got a bridge to sell you in fucking Brooklyn, son. It's a real beauty, are you interested?

[Anonymous No.8120973]

Global Warming is much more impressive when you start at the Little Ice Age.

[Anonymous No.8121001]

>>8120842
So you deny all peer reviewed scientific literature. Ooooooookaaaaay. And there are several very employed earth science professors who deny climate man made change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Your attempt to suggest that either everyone agrees or gets fired is patently false.

>>8120897
Did you just ... did you just use a bunch of papers from 1957 to disprove that we can measure CO2 changes in the atmosphere?

Because we totally have the technology to do exactly that now.

http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/Documents/Publications/1997/Global_Biogeochem._Cycles_1997_Fung.pdf

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_isotopes.html

>>8120925
At no point in time did I ever or anyone make the claim they are melting faster than ever, just that they're melting. Almost all of them.

[Anonymous No.8121025]

The incredible thing is that the exact same denier bullshit gets posted in every thread, and yet people still try and respond to it as if the shitter posting it was open to discussion. The last dozen threads were opportunity enough for good-faith arguments. It's past the time to start calling this >>8120930 dipshit a fuckface with stale bait.

[Anonymous No.8121092]

>>8120656
>our plural anecdote is different
bitches don't know bout our random sample
nice repetition of the Legates meme btw
>maybe if we only classify papers as supportive if they say it exactly this one particular way...

>>8120681
>part of the pacific ocean fluctuates slightly ahead of global temperature fluctuations
>therefore the pacific ocean is responsible for climate change!
dude, really? all you've established is that fluctuations in one part of the globe are mildly predictive of fluctuations in the global temperature.
again, you are conflating the causes of year-scale fluctuations with the causes of long-term trends. it's like saying that because changes in river output are correlated with the tides, that the flow of rivers must be caused by the moon. magical thinking, nothing more.

>>8120752
>let's pretend scientists said a bunch of stupid shit

>>8120827
>I omitted two chunks of a time series, and hand-drew trendlines on the three remaining segments to make it say what I want it to say
and you accuse climatologists of data tampering?
>explain this!
>posts two papers concluding that climate change is happening
JUST

>>8120842
>implying the apparent pause is real and not a statistical artifact

>>8120897
oh look, you posted the Jaworowski graph again. you do REALIZE that Development in Earth Science isn't a real journal, right? also
>hurr I'm gonna look at some trendlines and just tell you if they're correlated or not without running any statistical analysis
but as we all know, bad science (and I mean the sort of tripe that wouldn't even make it past the editor) is perfectly fine if it tells you what you want to hear.

[Anonymous No.8121196]

>>8117496
cogent af
shouldn't the end of the second read
>"... came from by the increased presence of carbons 12 and 14"

[Anonymous No.8121220]

>>8117571
if those articles happened to have convincing sound arguments explaining observations, other articles would be written backing up those arguments, and acceptance would shift from the old theory to the new.

we are all very proud of your 24 articles.

[Anonymous No.8122143]

>>8117301
>There's a pretty broad consensus that between 80-120% of the temperature rise over the last 50 years is due to human activity.
>80-120% of the temperature rise
>80-120% of rise
>80-120% rise
>80-120%
>120%
wat

[Anonymous No.8122201]

>>8122143
Human influence causes 120 units of warming. Other shit causes 20 units of cooling. Therefore human influence is 120% of the 100 units of warming that we observe.

[Anonymous No.8122248]

>>8122143
Assume I raise number 5 to 10 by adding 2 and 3.
2 is 40% of the rise (2/5) and 3 is 60% of the rise (3/5). Talking about any percentages of the rise above 100% makes no sense. I assume you just turned 12 so I will forgive you.

[Anonymous No.8122276]

>>8122201
Please, whatever you do in life, never EVER be respobsible for examining my income tax returns.

[Anonymous No.8122421]

>>8122248
>>8122276
I just explained how it does make sense. The fact that you are too retarded to comprehend simple math doesn't change that.

[Anonymous No.8122428]

lol every climate change chart is completely different from one another. AGW cultists have become a parody of themselves.

[Anonymous No.8123379]

>>8122248
>Basic math makes no sense!
>I assume you just turned 12 so I will forgive you.
Climate change denialists in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.8124299]

>>8122143
>>8122248
THEY DO THIS EVERY TIME