/sci/ - Science & Math

[Geometric Unity No.8840711]

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases was correct, then increasing pollution would be directly correlated with increasing warming. Regardless of whether or not one denies "teh pause" in global warming, everyone agrees that warming has slowed down. How can this be reconciled with the theory of AGW when every year, year after year, the amount of CO2 pollution increases without stop?

Qualitative pic related (http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069)) shows how the theory of AGW predicts that all the derivatives of warming should mimic the derivatives of CO2 but they don't. Even the fake data isn't so fake that the derivatives agree.

IMO: this is the temperature index of record, update monthly: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[Anonymous No.8841366]

>>8840711
No shit, if you ignore everything in the climate except a single mechanism, you're going to end up with "predictions" that actually look nothing like reality. That's why real climatologists don't do that.

>everyone agrees that warming has slowed down
Uh, no. No it has not.
See pic related.

>AGW predicts that all the derivatives of warming should mimic the derivatives of CO2
Also no. Double no on the timescales we're talking about.

>http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
This a new and incredible tier of "research" you've found. It's full of marvellous things:

>The University of Alabama, Huntsville publishes the temperature of the global lower
atmosphere each month. This dataset is superior to many others because an absolute
minimum of adjustments are applied to the raw data before publishing.
Apparently the author doesn't even understand what the satellite record IS.

>In column 4 there are about 20,000 authors who did not endorse AGW. In column 5 there
are 168 because the 99% of non-endorsers who did not take a position were removed. There
are many reasons an author may have chosen not to endorse or reject AGW. First among
them is that the author does not see sufficient evidence to make an evaluation.
There's no scientific consensus on evolution, because most biology papers don't include the phrase "evolution is true".

>The UAH temperature in figure 1 is very nearly a pure measurement. GISS is an index: an amalgamation of real temperatures and ex post facto temperature adjustments.
This is so wrong it hurts.

> We are to believe no warming trend appeared in the original GISS because the “errors” in the data were just such that warming was canceled out. In truth, there have been no recent revelations in the physics of heat that warrant these adjustments.
The paper that first contained the adjustments also justified them. Finding it isn't even hard.

This trainwreck of a paper just goes on and on, and it's full of stupid shit.

[Geometric Unity No.8841533]

>>8841366
>>everyone agrees that warming has slowed down
>Uh, no. No it has not.
>See pic related.

What I meant was that the rate of the warming has slowed down, which why I made a thread about the rate of increase (1 deriv) and the rate of increase of the rate of increase (2 deriv). The second derivative of the data in your chart has been zero since 1970 but the second derivative of the rate of greenhouse gas pollution increasing in the atmosphere has been increasing the whole time.

>if you ignore everything in the climate except a single mechanism

If even a single mechanism shows the theory is wrong then the theory is wrong. The CO2 pollution has been accelerating every year and the greenhouse theory of AGW says that warming should increase likewise. If that was happening, the slope of the data in your chart wouldn't have constant slope, it would be exponential concave up

[Anonymous No.8841567]

>>8841533
>What I meant was that the rate of the warming has slowed down
I understand that, and that's wrong.

>The second derivative of the data in your chart has been zero since 1970 but the second derivative of the rate of greenhouse gas pollution increasing in the atmosphere has been increasing the whole time.
You haven't actually made any case that the two should be that closely connected.

>If even a single mechanism shows the theory is wrong then the theory is wrong.
What? That's not what I said at all.
I said that the author of your paper was ignoring important mechanism, not that climatologists were.

>The CO2 pollution has been accelerating every year and the greenhouse theory of AGW says that warming should increase likewise.
The connection isn't that strong, there are a number of other factors involved.

[Anonymous No.8841920]

>>8840711
> vixra

HAHAHAHAHA, fuck me, please try harder.

[Anonymous No.8841962]

>>8841366
>take data
>create model from data
>use same data to test model
>oh look it agrees

climate science is a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.8841971]

>>8841962
What are you talking about?

[Geometric Unity No.8843173]

>>8841567
>You haven't actually made any case that the two should be that closely connected.

You're right I did not make that case. That case is known as theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect and it was already made before I became interested in the physics of the climate.

[Anonymous No.8843264]

>>8843173
>That case is known as theory of anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect
No it isn't.

[Geometric Unity No.8844298]

>>8843264
Yes it is. Dumbass.