Evidence For Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Anonymous No.9822725]

What exactly is the evidence for the claim that human activities are the main driver of climate change? This graph is the only thing I see tossed around. It's not even that great of a correlation. Furthermore, why are we looking at a sample size of 100 years when climate change operates on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years? If we draw our conclusions based on that much larger and more consistent data, we should be preparing for an ice age right now, not for global warming. In addition, I don't see the issue with global warming. Humans have lived in higher temperatures than the worst of these alarmists' projections, which frankly I can't put much faith in when we can't even predict if it will rain in a week or not. I'm not opposed to the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, I just can't accept these claims with a simple graph like most people do.

[Anonymous No.9822736]

>What exactly is the evidence for the claim that human activities are the main driver of climate change?
there isnt any, climate change is pseudoscience just like IQ

[Anonymous No.9822740]

>>9822736
Well it's off topic, but there are actually significant correlations between IQ and metrics of success.

[Anonymous No.9822750]

>>9822740
>Well it's off topic, but there are actually significant correlations between IQ and metrics of success.
there are also significant correlations between autism rates and organic food sales

[Anonymous No.9822759]

>>9822750
This thread needs more graphs showing very, very meaningful correlations. Since climate threads turn into /pol/ish shit-shows anyway, might as well have a little fun.

[Anonymous No.9822760]

>>9822725
>I don't see why a global change in ecology might be distressing

t. brainlet who doesn't understand how nature works and the dramatic effect even a 2 degree celsius change could have on the world.

>Chemicals that do not occur in great quantities in nature
>Do not degrade in atmosphere for multiple decades
>Displace or destroy the natural protective layer that prevents solar radiation from fucking earth silly
>A quick Google search can get you the volume of this evacuated into the atmosphere every year, as reported by the companies doing it and empirical data collected

Why do you think melanoma rates have skyrocketed?

It's not irreversible, and it certain doesn't justify extreme reversals of industry or science, but we SHOULD invest into carbon sinks and more responsible air quality management. Creating biochar and mixing it into depleted soils is a great idea that helps everyone.

[Anonymous No.9822762]

[Anonymous No.9822771]

[Anonymous No.9822774]

>>9822760
Where is the evidence that co2 causes an increase in temperature? As for your fourth point, I think everyone can agree that CFCs shouldn't be let loose into the atmosphere and now that we've stopped doing it the hole in the ozone layer is recovering. My problem is with the fact that the so-called evidence for climate change being anthropogenic being a 100 year sample size. Why is this sample privileged over the much larger and more consistent sample size that indicates that we are heading for an ice age and not the opposite?

[Anonymous No.9822785]

For example here. What is there to suggest that the current period of warmth isn't just another blimp on the axis?

[Anonymous No.9822794]

>>9822725
Anon, use your brain for a second.

Carbon Dioxide is a gas that naturally occurs in the atmosphere at a set ratio that never really had much reason to change in millions of years, yeah? It fluctuates, but it tends to sit around the same level most of the time. It forms a protective, insulating layer around Earth along with Ozone and other gases.

What happens when you burn carbon-rich objects that had previously been trapped under or on Earth's surface for more than a hundred years, using nearly 30% of the Earth's supply, while also drastically reducing the number of things that recapture that carbon into solid, earth-bound form? Carbon dioxide doesn't just float off into space en masse, mind you.

So you must cede that man has drastically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This isn't a matter of debate.

So you remember how when volume increases, it does so at an exponentially faster rate than surface area? What happens when you have a much thicker blanket of sun-warmed gas surrounding Earth, without a similarly-increased surface area to radiate that heat away?

[Anonymous No.9822805]

>>9822774
>Where is your evidence that CO2 increases temperature

Anon, are you okay? It's literally the main component of the layer of insulating gases around Earth. If it didn't increase temperature the planet's surface would be an average of 0 degrees celsius.

[Anonymous No.9822809]

>>9822794
How do you know the amount of co2 we're emitting is enough to cause significant changes in climate?

[Anonymous No.9822810]

>>9822809
https://books.google.com/books?id=jeSwRly2M_cC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=280#v=onepage&q=280&f=false

I really do wonder what's causing that exponential growth of CO2 frozen in the polar ice caps. I guess it's perfectly natural and not directly corrolated to the industrial revolution and growth of human industry in any way.

[Anonymous No.9822816]

>>9822785
Out of all those warming periods, it never once went above 1°C above the average.

[Anonymous No.9822821]

>>9822809
No scientist with a brain contests it exists and we're causing it anymore. The discussion now is on just how pressing an issue it actually is, and whether drastic measures are worth the human cost when more measured, slower approaches are available. Are we going to fucj ourselves in twenty years, or fifty, and whether diverting resources in such a way that we can know causes human suffering is better or worse than taking our time and causing less.

[Anonymous No.9822824]

>>9822725
Paleoclimate proxy information that goes back millions of years. We're see climate change on the order of hundreds of years for things that usually take tens of thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.9822826]

>>9822824
seeing*

[Anonymous No.9822829]

Alright, thanks guys, and thanks to the anon for the link to the book. I think I got what I wanted from this thread, we'll see if anyone else wants to chime in.

[Anonymous No.9822923]

>>9822725
I do believe the Earth is warming up but not because of Greenhouse gasses, if anyone care I can explain my reasoning

[Anonymous No.9822979]

>>9822794
If you were really using your brain you'd know that depending on the temperature the ocean is a major player in releasing CO2. The hotter it is the more is released, the colder it is the less.
In the past rising CO2 concentrations were met with proportional plant growth until plant growth would surpass CO2 production. Like any creature and lack of nutrient the excess dies off.
Temperature leads CO2 production but they still go hand in hand and effect each other in minute ways. Your question was about CO2 so we didn't talk much on Milkanovitch cycles, but they would be a large factor in planet heat at these times and by proxy CO2 production.

Most charts you see talking about ice ages and Earth temperature use proxy data, single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs. They also take the average temperature of the little ice age period of the 1960s to try to show humans are the main cause of these issues when they're not. They're climate change is a naturally occurring cycle but you can't tell people theyre helpless to help and will one day die or theyll make everything worse between now and then.

[Anonymous No.9823309]

>>9822759
Is there a website for these

[Anonymous No.9823321]

>>9822750
>>9822759

ya lets list off the things that are proportional to population.

[Anonymous No.9823440]

>>9822785
Well for one, the current rate of warming is at least an order of magnitude higher than the warming seen at the end of the last glacial, and anything in the last 700,000 years.

Also, you should know that your graph is fraudulent. If you look at Schonwiese 1995 you'll see the person that made your image cut off the data that shows current warming far exceeds temperature in the last 12000 years. They also misrepresented the data by saying that it is average temperature of the northern hemisphere when it only represents the temperature from a single ice core site in Greenland. Always check the source before believing images posted on denier sites.

[Anonymous No.9823442]

>>9822774
>Where is the evidence that co2 causes an increase in temperature?
That's literally what the greenhouse effect is. Not only do we have a shittonne of historical data showing the connection between temperature and CO2, and the basic physics that predicts the relationship, but we can directly measure the increase in downward IR being emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere.

>Why is this sample privileged over the much larger and more consistent sample size that indicates that we are heading for an ice age?
Because the physical conditions in those time periods are different,
Just because I have 4 years of data showing my house stays between 10C and 25C doesn't mean I can safely ignore the last two minutes of 80C and smoke.

>>9822809
>How do you know the amount of co2 we're emitting is enough to cause significant changes in climate?
Because we can measure that

>>9822979
>If you were really using your brain you'd know that depending on the temperature the ocean is a major player in releasing CO2
The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2

>Temperature leads CO2 production
It has in some historical cases. That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

>single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs.
That's simply wrong
The famous Mann hockeystick graph is done using annual temperatures over the last thousand years. The change in trend is absolutely in the data, and not a product of the processing. You should at least skim the paper before discussing what's in it.
Also that's nearly 30 years old. Newer studies are considerably more accurate.

>They also take the average temperature of the little ice age period of the 1960s
The "little ice age" was somewhere in the 16th to 19th centuries, not the 1960s.
Also, the LIA was a series of local phenomenon, spread out over large period. The global impact wasn't that large, and is absolutely dwarfed by modern warming.

[Anonymous No.9823443]

>>9822794
You're forgetting the factor we're not supposed to talk about, which was "supposed" to "fix" G.W., which won't, but will - in a rather ironic way. Got a raft?

[Anonymous No.9823459]

>>9822794
>So you remember how when volume increases, it does so at an exponentially faster rate than surface area? What happens when you have a much thicker blanket of sun-warmed gas surrounding Earth, without a similarly-increased surface area to radiate that heat away?
That's not even slightly how the greenhouse effect works.

The Sun is warmer than the Earth. This means Sun emits mainly visible light and little IR while the Earth emits mainly IR and little visible light. CO2 is opaque to IR, but transparent to visible light. The means that atmospheric CO2 will absorb more outgoing radiation than incoming radiation, which raises the equilibrium temperature of the Earth.

>>9823443
>You're forgetting the factor we're not supposed to talk about, which was "supposed" to "fix" G.W., which won't, but will - in a rather ironic way. Got a raft?
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.9823468]

>>9822979
>If you were really using your brain you'd know that depending on the temperature the ocean is a major player in releasing CO2. The hotter it is the more is released, the colder it is the less.
Even if we ignore that the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than it releases, and that we know through several different methods that man is the sole cause of the rapid rise in CO2 seen since the industrial revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Anthropogenic_CO2_emissions)), this begs the question, what caused the increase in temperature to make the oceans release more CO2?

>Your question was about CO2 so we didn't talk much on Milkanovitch cycles, but they would be a large factor in planet heat at these times and by proxy CO2 production.
Milankovich cycles happen slowly on much larger time scales of tens of thousands of years. The rapid warming trend does not coincide with any trend in incoming solar radiation. And we are at the end of an interglacial, so according to the Milankovich cycle we should be slowly cooling into a glacial period, not rapidly warming. You're not making any sense.

>Most charts you see talking about ice ages and Earth temperature use proxy data, single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs.
Wrong, all but one of the hockey stick graphs have the same data resolution throughout.

>They also take the average temperature of the little ice age period of the 1960s to try to show humans are the main cause of these issues when they're not
How?

>They're climate change is a naturally occurring cycle but you can't tell people theyre helpless to help and will one day die or theyll make everything worse between now and then.
What is the frequency of this cycle? What causes it? Why don't we see warming even close this rapid in the past 600,000 years?

[Anonymous No.9823472]

>>9823459
covering the earths surface area with more water by melting ice caps.

[Anonymous No.9823619]

>>9823442
>It has in some historical cases. That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
I'm not saying CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, just that it has natural fluctuations that historically always trail behind temperature.

>The famous Mann hockeystick graph is done using annual temperatures over the last thousand years.
I wasn't talking about that graph. I was talking about hockey stick graphs in general. If you want a more famous, modern one that normies will know take the one off the XKCD webpage. Tons of inaccuracies in those reports his graph is based off of.

>The "little ice age" was somewhere in the 16th to 19th centuries, not the 1960s.
The 1960's had temperature fluctuations that were some of the coldest modern day temperatures since the 1800s. I used that point since that's usually the point in hockey stick graphs (such as the XKCD one) where they start plotting daily data to blame it on humans.


>>9823468
> what caused the increase in temperature to make the oceans release more CO2?
Milkanovitch cycles.

>Milankovich cycles ...You're not making any sense.
Please see the graph in the post I made, taken from a T1 university website on climate change.

>Wrong, all but one of the hockey stick graphs have the same data resolution throughout.
Please tell me how you will get DAILY data from the last 100k years from tree rings, rock samples, and ice cores then? Apparently all the papers I've read haven't been able to do this. Not even the governments of these countries have been able to do this. In fact most papers that use this proxy data use Monte Carlo randomization functions that give /almost/ the same output as the few proxy samples they have and just take whatever it spits out to fill in the blanks. We should definitely listen to that.

[Anonymous No.9823658]

>>9823619
>Milkanovitch cycles.
>Please see the graph in the post I made, taken from a T1 university website on climate change.
How does that graph contradict anything I said? Again, Milankovich cycles cause warming of a few degrees over thousands of years. Right now we are warming about ten times faster than that. The climate already went through that warming phase 12000 years ago. Right now we are in the cooling phase of the Milankovich cycle, when solar insolation slowly decreases. So claiming that current warming is caused by Milankovich cycles is doubly nonsensical. Milankovich cycles neither produce the kind of warming we are seeing nor would they produce warming at this time. You don't appear to understand what you're talking about.

See https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

>Please tell me how you will get DAILY data from the last 100k years from tree rings, rock samples, and ice cores then?
Please tell me which hockey stick graph has daily resolution. You should read what I wrote again. I said that the data has the same resolution throughout, not that it has daily resolution. Almost anytime you see a hockey stick with multiple proxies with different temporal resolution that are combined, there is some filtering process applied to it that reduces the resolution of the higher resolution data. If not, the paper will certainly point that out and say that the comparison between the data sets is not statistically relevant.

[Anonymous No.9823707]

>>9823619
>I'm not saying CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, just that it has natural fluctuations
We already know that the rapid increase seen since the industrial revolution is not a natural fluctuation. See >>9823468
Atmospheric CO2 has only continued to increase as solar irradiance decreased over several decades.

>that historically always trail behind temperature.
Expcept for now. Historically, humans did not exist and did not emit a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Historically, that massive amount of CO2 was absorbed by plankton and algae and deposited on the ocean floor over millions of years, cooling the planet and creating a climate that allowed for our species to evolve. But I'm sure nothing bad will happen if we put all that carbon that took millions of years to accumulate back into the atmosphere in only a few hundred years. If you are going to talk about the history of the climate, maybe you should pay attention to that.

>I wasn't talking about that graph. I was talking about hockey stick graphs in general. If you want a more famous, modern one that normies will know take the one off the XKCD webpage.
Ah yes, I was very disappointed when the IPCC neglected to include that graph in their last report. You can't be serious...

>The 1960's had temperature fluctuations that were some of the coldest modern day temperatures since the 1800s.
For what, a day in certain places? Globally, annual temperatures over that period were average for the century, where we would expect them to be in the middle of a warming tend.

[Anonymous No.9823759]

>>9822979
>In the past rising CO2 concentrations were met with proportional plant growth until plant growth would surpass CO2 production. Like any creature and lack of nutrient the excess dies off.
Imagine being so retarded that you think things just despawn when they die.

Biomass is carbon neutral and only acts as a store of carbon, not a sink. All of the Earth's land based biomass only accounts for less than 1% of the Earth's carbon storage and has never accounted for significantly more than that. You're thinking of the Carboniferous period sequestering the CO2 from the Jurassic period by trapping dead biomass in swampland that covered the majority of the planet, passing that carbon to the fossil record. Digging up all the carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to store and releasing it into the atmosphere over the course of a couple centuries is obviously going to impact the environment

[Anonymous No.9823765]

>>9822750
>>9822759
fuck i should've known.

[Anonymous No.9824856]

>>9823658
>The climate already went through that warming phase 12000 years ago.
The warming that happened is what took us out of a glaciation phase into the current warming phase that we are experiencing. We are in low eccentricity still, the rotational cycle that contributes to more distributed solar radiation. The axial tilt is currently around 23.5 degrees, a max of 24.5 and a low of 21.3, where a larger degree of tilt corresponds with warmer seasons.

>Please tell me which hockey stick graph has daily resolution.
Literally every graph showing temperature data past the early 1900s. It's been show that plotting (with actual taken data, not randomization methods or averages to fill in the blanks) along the same resolution shows no inherit differences in temperature fluctuations.

>>9823707
>Atmospheric CO2 has only continued to increase as solar irradiance decreased over several decades.
And it's been shown that low sunspot activity and solar forcing contribute to temperature fluctuations. In fact the IPCC itself agrees there has been a slow down of 'global warming' saying "has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2."

>Historically, that massive amount of CO2 was absorbed by plankton and algae and deposited on the ocean floor over millions of years...
Continuing with above the IPCC says that the heat is apparently just hiding in the deep ocean. Which if that's the case then climate models are simply failing to simulate the exchanges of heat and the ocean.

>But I'm sure nothing bad will happen...If you are going to talk about the history of the climate, maybe you should pay attention to that.
For someone knowing about the history of the climate I'm sure you could comment on the National Academy of Science finding that across the last 500myr intense periods of glaciation, not warming, occurred when the CO2 levels were five times larger than today?

[Anonymous No.9825300]

>>9824856
>The warming that happened is what took us out of a glaciation phase into the current warming phase that we are experiencing.
No, the warming that took us out of the glaciation started 12000 years ago and ended 10000 years ago. Look at your own graph >>9822785. For 10000 years the climate has been in the stable interglacial phase, which is followed by slow glacial cooling. But instead of that we are now seeing further warming even more rapid than interglacial warming.

>We are in low eccentricity still, the rotational cycle that contributes to more distributed solar radiation. The axial tilt is currently around 23.5 degrees, a max of 24.5 and a low of 21.3, where a larger degree of tilt corresponds with warmer seasons.
You do know that interglacial warming only occurs when eccentricity is increasing, right? Eccentricity peaked 10000 years ago and is now decreasing to minimum. It appears you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9825385]

>>9824856
>Literally every graph showing temperature data past the early 1900s. It's been show that plotting (with actual taken data, not randomization methods or averages to fill in the blanks) along the same resolution shows no inherit differences in temperature fluctuations.
Literally, wrong. Pic related plots a 30 proxy reconstruction with decadal resolution with the instrumental record. Notice how the instrumental record is only plotted as decadal averages.

>And it's been shown that low sunspot activity and solar forcing contribute to temperature fluctuations.
The only thing that's been shown is that low sunspot activity and solar forcing leads cooling. But I look forward to you explaining how less radiative forcing from the sun leads to global warming, should be good for a laugh.

>In fact the IPCC itself agrees there has been a slow down of 'global warming' saying "has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2."
In fact the IPCC never said this. This quote is from a group of deniers that calls itself the NIPCC. Once again we see that you fail to even meet basic standards of skepticism. You could have simply googled the quote to make sure it was real, but instead you gullibly copy and pasted and pretended to know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9825445]

>>9824856
>Continuing with above the IPCC says that the heat is apparently just hiding in the deep ocean. Which if that's the case then climate models are simply failing to simulate the exchanges of heat and the ocean.
Most of the heat is stored in the ocean, that has nothing to do with this pause that doesn't exist. Pic related. Not only was there no pause to the warming in the past 16 years, it was faster warming than the average rate seen since 1850.

[Anonymous No.9825451]

>>9824856
>For someone knowing about the history of the climate I'm sure you could comment on the National Academy of Science finding that across the last 500myr intense periods of glaciation, not warming, occurred when the CO2 levels were five times larger than today?
I'm skeptical considering pic related says the opposite, and considering that citing the entire NAS for such a specific claim indicates you once again did not do your homework in checking this out before gullible posting it. But you understand all this as a self-described skeptic.

[Anonymous No.9825453]

call back when the data you put on your graphs isn't tainted

[Anonymous No.9825460]

>>9822725
>Anthropogenic Climate Change
athroprogenic climate change isn't real.
yes, we are causing warming, not climate change.

[Anonymous No.9825462]

>>9825453
I've heard that one before

[Anonymous No.9825507]

>>9822725
Based on the amount of CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere, basic chemistry would tell us to expect significant global warming. This was first predicted back in the 1890s. And in fact we see that there is signicicant warming. So either the CO2 is causing the warming or there is something cancelling out the greenhouse effect and something causimg the earth to warm anyway, but we don't know of any good candidates for either of those things (it's not the sun, since solar irradiance has actually been decreasing).

[Anonymous No.9825514]

>>9825507
there's lots of competing thoeries and they've all been studied in-depth
Anthropogenic global warming is the one that survived even though it's still being challenged right now

[Anonymous No.9825516]

>>9825462
no shit

[Anonymous No.9825597]

>>9825453
>call back when the data you put on your graphs isn't tainted
Of course! Why would I trust organisations like NOAA and CSIRO, when I could instead believe the unsupported allegations of a random anonymous stranger?

[Anonymous No.9825601]

>>9825453
How do you know it's tainted? Because you got thoroughly eviscerated?

[Anonymous No.9825602]

>>9825445
Woops forgot pic

[Anonymous No.9825603]

It's another hoax like the ozone layer hole was in the 90's. Politicians need these stories to be able to funnel government money to their golf buddies.

[Anonymous No.9825629]

>>9825300
1. Not my graph
2. You mean when the Earth has longer periods further away from the sun? With low eccentricity there's about a 7% increase in solar radiation compared to higher eccentricity. If you're going to post based off your wiki searches at least get it right.

>>9825385
Once again the temperature average is based starting in the 1960-90s where the temperature was historically lowest since the 1800s. Ive already mentioned this.

Sure, Energy and Environment has an article detailing the actions of reduced sunspot activity, leading to a rise in solar irradiance, correlated with a rise in surface temperatures on Earth. Harvard has documented this for the past 130 years and shows similar correlation with regards to the Arctic. Looks like you mistook sunspot activity for forcing. Easy mistake.

It's a paraphrase from the IPCC article Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis where it's admitted there has been a slowing of global warming since the 1800s as it only rose an average of 1.5F since.

[Anonymous No.9825709]

>>9825629
>1. Not my graph
This doesn't respond to my point. The last interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago, it did not continue to today as you claim. And you have failed to respond to the fact that current warming is an order of magnitude higher than interglacial warming. You have completely ignored the two major flaws in your argument I pointed out several parts ago.

>2. You mean when the Earth has longer periods further away from the sun?
Greater eccentricity means the Earth is closer to the sun at perihelion and farther away at aphelion. So the Earth is both closer and farther away from the sun at different times of the year. The increase in solar irradiance when the Earth is near perihelion, along with the effects of other orbital cycles that coincide with the phases of increasing eccentricity, drives unusually large amounts of CO2 and water vapor to be released from the oceans, creating a positive feedback loop between warming and greenhouse gas emissions. This process only stops when eccentricity peaks and decreases to minimum again. You can clearly see in the attached pic that interglacial warming only occurs when eccentricity is increasing and stops when eccentricity peaks. This is the Milankovich cycle, that thing you were pretending to understand.

>With low eccentricity there's about a 7% increase in solar radiation compared to higher eccentricity.
Where are you getting this from? The annual average solar irradiance doesn't change much with eccentricity, and it certainly doesn't increase with less eccentricity. It increases slightly.

>Once again the temperature average is based starting in the 1960-90s where the temperature was historically lowest since the 1800s.
First of all, that's simply wrong. The temperature from the 60s to the 90s was the highest temperature in the instrumental record at that point. See >>982560.

[Anonymous No.9825713]

>>9825629
>1. Not my graph
This doesn't respond to my point. The last interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago, it did not continue to today as you claim. And you have failed to respond to the fact that current warming is an order of magnitude higher than interglacial warming. You have completely ignored the two major flaws in your argument I pointed out several parts ago.

>2. You mean when the Earth has longer periods further away from the sun?
Greater eccentricity means the Earth is closer to the sun at perihelion and farther away at aphelion. So the Earth is both closer and farther away from the sun at different times of the year. The increase in solar irradiance when the Earth is near perihelion, along with the effects of other orbital cycles that coincide with the phases of increasing eccentricity, drives unusually large amounts of CO2 and water vapor to be released from the oceans, creating a positive feedback loop between warming and greenhouse gas emissions. This process only stops when eccentricity peaks and decreases to minimum again. You can clearly see in the attached pic that interglacial warming only occurs when eccentricity is increasing and stops when eccentricity peaks. This is the Milankovich cycle, that thing you were pretending to understand.

>With low eccentricity there's about a 7% increase in solar radiation compared to higher eccentricity.
Where are you getting this from? The annual average solar irradiance doesn't change much with eccentricity, and it certainly doesn't increase with less eccentricity. It decreases slightly.

>Once again the temperature average is based starting in the 1960-90s where the temperature was historically lowest since the 1800s.
First of all, that's simply wrong. The temperature from the 60s to the 90s was the highest temperature in the instrumental record at that point. See >>9825602

[Anonymous No.9825715]

>>9825713
Attached pic

[Anonymous No.9825737]

>>9825629
>Once again the temperature average is based starting in the 1960-90s where the temperature was historically lowest since the 1800s.
Second, how does this respond to anything I said?

>Sure, Energy and Environment has an article detailing the actions of reduced sunspot activity, leading to a rise in solar irradiance, correlated with a rise in surface temperatures on Earth.
Again solar forcing has been decreasing for decades, while temperature has increased. How does less insolation cause warming?

>It's a paraphrase from the IPCC article Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis where it's admitted there has been a slowing of global warming since the 1800s as it only rose an average of 1.5F since.
It's a fake quote about a fake pause. See >>9825602. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.9825750]

>>9822725
Daily reminder that climate "scientists" have completely rewritten the temperature record.

[Anonymous No.9825754]

>>9823468
>>Most charts you see talking about ice ages and Earth temperature use proxy data, single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs.
>Wrong, all but one of the hockey stick graphs have the same data resolution throughout.

You are so full of crap. When they actually do this, they cherry pick the data or "re-date" to get the pre-determined result. Pic related. Marcott redated proxies (ignoring published dates) to turn a downturn into an uptick. Got to hide the decline, huh?

[Anonymous No.9825760]

>>9823707
You might want to mention that that crap graph is from "homogenized" that is, add in the urban heat data. Pic related, clean data from NOAA Type 1 and 2 temperature stations have a much lower rate of warming. Not much of a temperature change is it?

>nb4 after we added urban heat back into those data (homogenization) and it got hotter!
Well duh.

[Anonymous No.9825761]

>>9825385
Look Mommy! I took low resolution proxy data and glued high resolution, high variance instrument data at the end. By mixing apples and oranges, I got another bogus hockey stick!

Maybe that's why you flunked statistics class.

Pic related. Another dishonest, climate "scientist" simply ignored data (in red) that didn't fit his pre-determined answer.

[Anonymous No.9825763]

>>9825507
>Based on the amount of CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere, basic chemistry would tell us to expect significant global warming.

How incredibly stupid. This isn't even chemistry. Its just the (quantum) physics of photon absorption and emissions by the CO2 molecule. Hint, because of quantum mechanics, a CO2 molecule can only absorb certain wavelengths of light. Once those are absorbed. there is nothing more it can do. That's why the warming effect of CO2 gets weaker and weaker, following a logarithmic curb.

[Anonymous No.9825768]

>>9825602
No, this is the picture of "man made" temperature change you forgot.

[Anonymous No.9825770]

>>9825462
Hear it again.

[Anonymous No.9825774]

>>9823309
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9825783]

>>9825750
>>9825754
>>9825760
>>9825761
>>9825763
>>9825768
>>9825770
Ah the retard is back to copying and pasting the same bullshit that has been debunked a thousand times before. See my responses in the previous threads where you posted these and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9825784]

To the guy posting graphs. At no time do we need temperature data to prove climate change is real and happening at an accelerating rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JbzypWJk64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFdPmiwZzVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN2-a82_3mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUdd83_pzdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uGh3UYs5mk

Your move

[Anonymous No.9825788]

>>9822794
>>9822810
>>9823442
Good responses, anons.

[Anonymous No.9825792]

>>9825770
c'mon dude
you gotta trust someone the ice core data is there
I got a B in climate change, it's a 3rd year course

[Anonymous No.9825840]

The whole topic doesn't make sense to a rational mind.

My suggestion is social dynamics. Probably claiming to be working on earthsaving research helped someone getting laid and getting grants, and eventually others catched up, and now we have a research industry based on sexual struggle between different groups of researchers, and they all meet at the conferences to discuss blowing (carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), gigantic holes (of ozone) and manmade pollution (not the nocturnal one). Their data is almost nonexistent, but still something keeps steadily rising, if you know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.9825980]

>>9825750
>>9825754
>>9825761
>>9825768
>>9825770
>Random graphs and buzzwords.
Please stop. Each of those have been refuted or explained in great detail in the past, and spamming them now is just going to make you look lazy and foolish. If you have an argument, actually put some effort into stating it clearly.

[Anonymous No.9826066]

>>9825713
>This doesn't respond to my point.
Why would I respond about a graph I know nothing about? The last GLACIAL period ended 12,000 years ago. Even 11,000 years ago Greenland rose 7C in less than 50 years. 7500 years ago the temperatures were warmer than today. Since then the temperatures lowered until about 3000 years ago. 1600 years ago the temperature was only, on average, 0.5C lower than todays temperatures, until the 800-1200AD where we get the warm middle ages. Cooling in 1350. Warming again at 1500, then cool until 1860 where it started warming again. You can't even accurately say "order of magnitude higher than interglacial warming" as even after glacial periods there are abrupt warmings.

>Greater eccentricity means the Earth is closer to the sun at perihelion and farther away at aphelion.
Yes, exactly, but you're not taking into account the axial tilt which corresponds to warmer temperature changes as well. With or without the effect of eccentricity.

>First of all, that's simply wrong.
I'm glad you're using the mean value rather than the isolated sample value which would show no discernible pattern and no change in linearity. Also, once again, the data used from Berkley is admitted to have weight change to the temperature if it's not within their bounds from nearby stations, their uncertainty formulas remove 12% of the data to "check", and is run through monte carlo randomization simulations to "check" as well.

[Anonymous No.9826069]

>>9825737
>Second, how does this respond to anything I said?
From your pic related. The 1960-90 period is a period of cool temperature that has almost no change in the time frame temperature average from the previous warming period, to then, to the next warming period.

>Again solar forcing has been decreasing for decades,
Because sun spots are inversely proportional to solar forcing. Less sunspot activity -> Rise in solar irradiance

>It's a fake quote about a fake pause.
Paraphrasing is not word for word. It's a compression of the information to get the point across. The IPCC report mentions the increase of CO2 at 43ppm, at most, across the decade. The IPCC report also mentions the decade only being 0.6C above the average (with a usual average increase of 0.08C since the 1800s, and 0.16C from the early 70s). As stated above, the base years used are the late 70s, where it's an average, cool period before warming again. If you use your basis as a cool day of course everything afterwards is going to be warmer.

>Nice attempt at moving the goalposts.
I didn't. But I'm glad you're concerned about goalposts. Maybe you can go back and answer all the other situations I brought up that make this an issue that humans aren't responsible for and that even if they were doesn't have negative impact that you conveniently forgot to respond to.

[Anonymous No.9826234]

>>9826066
>the data used from Berkley is admitted to have weight change to the temperature if it's not within their bounds from nearby stations
homogenization removes bias from temperature data sets. this has been pretty well proven. Read Hausfather et al. 2016
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>>9826069
>Because sun spots are inversely proportional to solar forcing. Less sunspot activity -> Rise in solar irradiance
that's a literal lie, pic related.
>The IPCC report also mentions the decade only being 0.6C above the average (with a usual average increase of 0.08C since the 1800s, and 0.16C from the early 70s).
niBBa you have some trouble with units apparently

[Anonymous No.9826250]

[Anonymous No.9826732]

>>9826066
>Why would I respond about a graph I know nothing about?
I asked you to respond to the argument I made, not the graph. We already know you know nothing about milankovich cycles.

>The last GLACIAL period ended 12,000 years ago. Even 11,000 years ago Greenland rose 7C in less than 50 years.
The end of a glacial period is defined by interglacial warming. The last interglacial warming started 12000 years ago and ended 10000 years ago. The fact that you think this responds to my argument when it is just reiterating what I have already said again shows how out of depth you are.

>7500 years ago the temperatures were warmer than today.
According to ice core data there were certainly specific sites that were warmer than the global average today, but that is not comparing apples to oranges. The average of the temperature data from 7500 years ago is less than the average global temp today. But this is irrelevant since it's the rapid rate of warming that is worrying, not necessarily the magnitude of the temperature.

>1600 years ago the temperature was only, on average, 0.5C lower than todays temperatures, until the 800-1200AD where we get the warm middle ages. Cooling in 1350. Warming again at 1500, then cool until 1860 where it started warming again.
Trying to equate current warming with warming in the past 2000 years is laughable. See >>9825385

>You can't even accurately say "order of magnitude higher than interglacial warming" as even after glacial periods there are abrupt warmings.
The abrupt warming after glacial periods IS interglacial warming. Can you just stop pretending to know anything about Milankovich cycles? Your just making a fool out of yourself.

>Yes, exactly, but you're not taking into account the axial tilt which corresponds to warmer temperature changes as well. With or without the effect of eccentricity.
How is this relevant? You did not respond to my point that interglacial warming only occurs when eccentricity is increasing.

[Anonymous No.9826740]

>>9826066
>I'm glad you're using the mean value rather than the isolated sample value which would show no discernible pattern and no change in linearity.
Sample value of what? I don't see how only paying attention to the aphelion responds to anything I've said. The data is right there and clearly shows interglacial warming only occurs when eccentricity is increasing, but eccentricity is currently decreasing. Thus your argument that current warming can be explained by Milankovich cycles is false. And you still have failed to respond to the fact that Milankovich cycles produce warming an order of magnitude lower than what we are currently observing. You have only shown to be totally ignorant of the subject.

[Anonymous No.9826758]

>>9826069
>From your pic related. The 1960-90 period is a period of cool temperature that has almost no change in the time frame temperature average from the previous warming period, to then, to the next warming period.
You didn't answer my question, just reiterated what I asked about. How does this respond to anything I said? What is the relevant conclusion you derive from this, assuming it's true, which it's not? As I have already said, the temperature record shows that the period was the warmest on record at the time, not cool.

>Because sun spots are inversely proportional to solar forcing. Less sunspot activity -> Rise in solar irradiance
This does not respond to what you're replying to. Solar irradiance has been decreasing for decades. This would mean cooling, not warming.

>Paraphrasing is not word for word.
It's not a paraphrase, it's a quote from a group of deniers that contradict the findings of the IPCC. Instead of paraphrasing, why don't you just show me where the IPCC said that there has been no significant warming for 16 years?

>The IPCC report also mentions the decade only being 0.6C above the average (with a usual average increase of 0.08C since the 1800s, and 0.16C from the early 70s).
Ah so now you have moved the goalposts from "the past 16 years" to "the decade" and "no significant warming" to "less warming." Funny how the specific details of the "paraphrase" suddenly changed.

Anyway all of this is moot as the data shows rapid warming continues to occur as expected. You can cherrypick any short term trend in the data you like, doesn't change the fact that there is a rapid warming trend across all of it.

>Maybe you can go back and answer all the other situations I brought up that make this an issue that humans aren't responsible for and that even if they were doesn't have negative impact that you conveniently forgot to respond to.
Like what?

[Anonymous No.9826821]

>>9822774
CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared light, meaning UV rays from the sun come in, but infrared rays from the Earth's surface can't get back out. This is why the planet is warmer than predicted if the Earth were a blackbody. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be here, its high school physics.

[Anonymous No.9826830]

>>9822785
It's happening much more rapidly now than anytime in the past. Plus it correlates perfectly with CO2 and methane concentration. Plus this CO2 concentration is directly attributable to anthropocentric emissions(no volcanoes or whatever as it was in the past). Plus there is a mechanism that explains how CO2 causes warming (see >>9826821)

[Anonymous No.9826852]

since there's an absence of evidence for climate change, this suggests evidence of absence of climate change

[Anonymous No.9826863]

>>9826852
>ignore all the evidence that disagrees with your opinions
>claim there's an absence of evidence

you said the same damn thing in the last thread, /pol/esmoker

[Anonymous No.9826871]

>>9826863
how does one ignore an absence?

[Anonymous No.9826875]

>>9826863
I don't ignore any evidence, I'm an antifa and would love for climate change to be true so that we could implement hard taxes on the middle and upper classes

[Anonymous No.9826905]

>>9826852
There is much more evidence for climate change than against it.

[Anonymous No.9826908]

>>9822774
Anyone who has a simple grasp of chemistry will know that CO2 can couple with radiation and trap energy. Other molecules are CH4 and H2O. The whole discussion about effects of CFC were the same in 70s and there was a huge denial from industry about the impact on the ozone layer. The same went for smoking and only in the 90s in US it was generally accepted that smoking was the culprit for increase of lung cancer and other lung/cardiovascular diseases... It is useful idiots like you who help the industry for free and keep profiting on people's misery.

[Anonymous No.9826917]

>>9826875
Actually, my desire would be for a tax on CO2 (per pound emitted) on whomever burns it, all funds going to funding carbon capture development. This would be a tax on petroleum products, electricity from coal/diesel/natural gas etc. This is primarily a tax on poorer people who have a large percentage of income going towards these things (like sales tax).

[Anonymous No.9826925]

>>9823442
>The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2
Not exactly in long term. I studied atmospheric chemistry and because of temperature raise and change of oceanic acidity the chemical shift is going towards releasing CO2 from the ocean so you end up with even more CO2 in the atmosphere. The algae absorbing CO2 are also affected by temperature and acidity.

[Anonymous No.9826956]

>>9826917
Spending revenue on replacing fossil fuel with nuclear and renewable would be much more cost effective than foreboding it in carbon capture.

[Anonymous No.9826967]

>>9826925
The only way I was aware that oceans could become a net source is if thermohaline circulation is disrupted. How long would it take before it becomes a net source purely by change in solubility due to temperature and acidity?

Regardless, the root cause of that change would be initial warming from manmade emissions, not nature.

[Anonymous No.9827032]

>>9823468
>What is the frequency of this cycle? What causes it? Why don't we see warming even close this rapid in the past 600,000 years?
More than likely because all of the methods of temperature recording prior to really the early 1900s are extremely indirect and cannot provide resolution anywhere close to what a daily recording can.
If we had real-time data acquisition over the last 600,000 years, we would see many of these rapid temperature fluctuations in both the heating and cooling direction.

[Anonymous No.9827077]

>>9827032
>If we had real-time data acquisition over the last 600,000 years, we would see many of these rapid temperature fluctuations in both the heating and cooling direction.
Modern reconstructions of the last 2000 years have decadal resolution. See >>9825385. We don't see any comparable temperature fluctuations, so what makes you think they exist? And you didn't answer my questions. What is the frequency of the cycle and what is the mechanism? You don't know because you are just making shit up. We already know that it's caused by human GHG emissions and you have no evidence of an alternative explanation. It's not a Milankovich cycle and it's not natural, admit it.

[Anonymous No.9827105]

>>9827077
>And you didn't answer my questions.
I'm not the same anon from previously in the thread and >>9827032 is my only post. I do not know what causes it, nor do I know if it is even a frequency.
Personally, I do not doubt that human release of co2 has an effect on the environment. I am, however, very skeptical over the methods (and motives) that are the foundation of the modern climate change theory.

>We already know that it's caused by human GHG emissions

No, we fucking don't. There is no control to reference (a control is basically impossible in this situation) so we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is man made co2 that is causing the current warming.
My alternative explanation is that there is some warming caused by man, by this small amount of warming is negligible compared to natural sources and that it is likely that the current warming trend we are seeing is the result of, for lack of a better term, anti-quantization. That is what I was talking about previously.

>Modern reconstructions of the last 2000 years have decadal resolution
First of all, they are reconstructions which should be taken with a grain of salt although I trust that the actual method of reconstruction is sound. The part that is not sound is the data they are feeding into the model. They are almost certainly feeding in ice-core data, most likely from Antarctica and Greenland primarily, which are only two regions on the planet. Now they don't have much to choose from so this is really the best they have, but this doesn't account for the fact that co2 levels are typically lower in areas that do not produce large amounts of co2 (see pic related). Now, some of the red areas are likely human caused although it is interesting how China, one of the largest producers of co2, is relatively low compared to other areas. Note how both the ice-cap regions have much lower average concentrations than the rest of the atmosphere (except for some localized areas).

[Anonymous No.9827118]

>>9827077
>>9827105
>CONT
Forgot pic related because I am a retard
>pic related
To be fair, this is only a chart for 1 year which is not conclusive by itself. However, it does suggest that there are lower concentrations of co2 at the only locations that ice cores are extracted (primarily Antarctica) and that this can artificially lower past co2 averages planet wide (since there is effectively only one sample location). They do use multiple methods for determining surface temperatures from ice cores (co2 and deuterium concentrations primarily) but these suffer from the same effect (essentially only one sample location). Both of these could easily skew the climate model colder for previous years and contribute to, what appears to be, the rapid increase in temperature. In addition, the icecore samples are not accurate enough, due to many factors (diffusion, reactions, location at capture), that temperature resolution is poor at best. This means that rapid fluctuations in temperature, such as the one we are seeing now, occured, but their evidence was smoothed out by a multitude of factors that are difficult to account for.

Another reason for my skepticism is that many of the current temperature sample locations, especially in the US, are in relatively urban areas which have a profound effect on the local temperature. Not that anecdotal evidence is worth anything, but it is not uncommon for temperatures to differ by around 5c between the medium sized town (~60k people) and the rural areas. A significant number of the recording sites were either moved into urban areas, or urban areas have developed around them when they were previously rural. This could be a very significant factor that very often gets brushed to the side (for unknown reasons).

The tree ring data collection practices are very poor and are not reliable at all (due to confirmation bias). It is a common practice for data collectors to throw out any tree ring samples that do not match temperature trends.

[Anonymous No.9827135]

>>9827118
I agree with you, but it’s impossible or very difficult to have an objective discussion about this with other scientists when it’s so politicised.

It’s quite interesting to note what happens when CO2 % increases locally: plants grow / fix energy more quickly, making use of any abundance.

[Anonymous No.9827145]

>>9827077
>>9827118
>CONT 2
If you consider the sample location issue, it is easy to see how confirmation bias could influence trends.
Consider the following
>8 out of 16 of the local temperature collection systems (the one used in generating the climate models) are located close to urban areas for there to be a significant increase in temperature
>say this boosts the local region temperature by around .2C
>scientists go out to collect tree ring data in the local rural forests
>natural thermal absorption so the average temperatures are slightly lower in this region compared to the station measured temperatures.
>Since they throw out some of the extremes of the data from the tree rings, they will be more prone to throw out data from the lower end of the scale than the higher end since the average temperature is shifted upward compared to what the tree ring data shows.
>Both sets of data now show a general increase in temperatures, and because this was the predicted outcome, it gets sent off to a climate database and fed into climate models.
>The inaccuracies in one set of data fed into the other set and caused an artificial increase in temperature, when in reality, there was either a much smaller one or none at all.

Now, to be very clear, I am just proposing this as a counter to the current climate change model. Being consistent is very difficult without a control group, which their is none for climate science, and is not necessarily the fault of anyone.
I do have a very big problem with current attitude towards the theory of "true until proven otherwise" which is not how scientific methods (not the meme scientific method) works. It should be encouraged to try and disprove the theory, because the proper way of doing it is "false until proven otherwise". There is a fair amount of evidence for the current climate change model, but at the same time, there is not really any way of proving it is correct or not and we should tread carefully with our conclusions.

[Anonymous No.9827159]

>>9827135
>but it’s impossible or very difficult to have an objective discussion about this with other scientists when it’s so politicised.
This is a massive issue and is part of the reason for my skepticism. Almost anytime something is politicized, there are miles and miles of bullshit behind it propping it up for some groups personal gain. In the current situation, it is being used to increase control over a population and increase personal wealth through government bureaucracy through taxes and regulations.
It is very easy for them to justify passing these regulations (which typically don't help out the environment that much) because they simply parrot these world wide destruction prophecies that are typically associated with the current model which makes the general population fearful that if they do not do as they say, they will all be dead in X number of years (also interesting to note how X is continuously getting pushed into the future). Oil companies are also guilty of pushing their own propaganda, but anymore they do not get away with much of it while the AGW crowd can spout whatever the fuck they want with no repercussions whatsoever because they are under the protection of multiple lobbyist and political organizations.

[Anonymous No.9827174]

>>9827105
>No, we fucking don't. There is no control to reference (a control is basically impossible in this situation) so we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is man made co2 that is causing the current warming.
The control is the temperature over the last 2000 years.

>My alternative explanation is that there is some warming caused by man, by this small amount of warming is negligible compared to natural sources
What natural sources?

>They are almost certainly feeding in ice-core data, most likely from Antarctica and Greenland primarily, which are only two regions on the planet.
Wrong, the reconstruction uses 30 different proxies from various locations in the northern hemisphere. Read the source instead of making shit up.

As to how we know the change in CO2 is solely due to man, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Anthropogenic_CO2_emissions

>>9827118
>Another reason for my skepticism is that many of the current temperature sample locations, especially in the US, are in relatively urban areas which have a profound effect on the local temperature.
Which is corrected by homogenization:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2012JD018509

If you only look at rural stations you very the same warming trend. Try again.

>The tree ring data collection practices are very poor and are not reliable at all (due to confirmation bias). It is a common practice for data collectors to throw out any tree ring samples that do not match temperature trends.
If tree ring data is to be used as a proxy for temperature and data in drought-prone areas are not a reliable proxy for temperature, then the data from those areas should not be used. This is not confirmation bias, it's basic reasoning.

Your questions have already been answered, but you don't want to find the answers, you just want to cling to the questions as an excuse for your denial. It's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9827187]

>>9827145
>If you consider the sample location issue, it is easy to see how confirmation bias could influence trends.
Again the effect of UHI has been studied extensively and found to be negligible. Berkeley Earth was designed, funded, and supported by skeptics in order to create a temperature record that was free of sample bias. It proved the current instrumental record is correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

But of course you will ignore this just like the deniers who supported it up until it came to the conclusion they disagreed with. There is a massive amount of evidence supporting the current theory, the only ones politicizing it are the people who deny the facts for political reasons.

[Anonymous No.9827195]

>>9827187
>their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), theHadley Centre, NASA'sGoddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and theClimatic Research Unit(CRU) at theUniversity of East Anglia.

[Anonymous No.9827202]

>>9827159
Funny how if you replace "climate change" and "carbon tax" with "evolution in schools" and "vaccines" you get a rant that makes about as much sense as the original one. No one cares about your baseless conspiracy theories. Either present scientific evidence for your claims or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9827205]

>>9827174
>>9827187
>The control is the temperature over the last 2000 years.
You obviously do not know what a control is. Regardless of that, I already addressed the inconsistencies with data collection methods.
>What natural sources?
cloud cover, ocean currents (the biggest thermal regulators on the planet), fluctuations in the jet stream, atmospheric dust concentrations. Those are a few that I though of and there are certainly more that I am unaware of.
>Wrong, the reconstruction uses 30 different proxies from various locations in the northern hemisphere. Read the source instead of making shit up.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
This is a neutral source where they talk about why many icecores from other locations are unsuitable for past climate models due to co2 amplification and how antartic ice cores are the primary source of past climate data.

>Your questions have already been answered, but you don't want to find the answers, you just want to cling to the questions as an excuse for your denial. It's pathetic.

So you are not actually interested in discussion and only want to virtue signal and act morally Superior without providing any substance and immediately jump to conclusions. I never denied any of the theory, which you would not fictitiously state if you were actually interested in dialogue. I stated, that I am skeptical of the theory for a few of the reasons that I listed, which I very clearly stated, COULD, substantially affect the climate models. Yet, regardless of what I say, you will simply brush it off, post vague sources (in most cases, not all) that only remotely discuss counterpoints and then wave your moral dick around like some kind of self righteous faggot.
The reason that a large number of people are skeptical or downright deniers of the theory is because of people like you. It doesn't matter what was stated, you project everything and are not interested in having an actual conversation.

[Anonymous No.9827206]

>>9827195
The skeptics who claimed everyone else was doing it wrong got the same results as everyone else. Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.9827254]

>>9827205
>You obviously do not know what a control is.
Are you an Electric Univers retard? They say the exact same thing about how you need a seperate control Earth otherwise all physics is wrong. What we need is a climate before and after massive manmade emissions, and we have that.

>cloud cover, ocean currents (the biggest thermal regulators on the planet), fluctuations in the jet stream, atmospheric dust concentrations. Those are a few that I though of and there are certainly more that I am unaware of.
These are not even radiative forcings.
Cloud cover is determined mostly by ocean heat. AMO and ENSO have no long term trend. The jetstream is a product of temperature fluctuations too. Dust is a product of desertification. But I look forward to your model explaining all this better than the well evidenced greenhouse effect.

>This is a neutral source where they talk about why many icecores from other locations are unsuitable for past climate models due to co2 amplification and how antartic ice cores are the primary source of past climate data.

[Anonymous No.9827266]

>>9827205
>This is a neutral source where they talk about why many icecores from other locations are unsuitable for past climate models due to co2 amplification and how antartic ice cores are the primary source of past climate data.
This is a complete misrepresentation of your source. It specifically says that other icecores are reliable for 650,000 years back but not as reliable for older than that, which is irrelevant sir the reconstruction only goes back 2000 years:

"This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability. Carbon dioxide measurements from older ice in Greenland is less reliable, as meltwater layers have elevated carbon dioxide (CO2 is highly soluble in water). Older records of carbon dioxide are therefore best taken from Antarctic ice cores."

Not to mention that the reconstruction dies not only use ice cores.

>So you are not actually interested in discussion and only want to virtue signal and act morally Superior without providing any substance and immediately jump to conclusions.
I have discussed all these questions with you. I have spooned you the answers you were not willing to find yourself. Now you are trying to twist this around and acting as if I have not given you substance. The only one ignoring the substance of the argument is you, since that is what you need to do to preserve your position against the evidence.

>I never denied any of the theory, which you would not fictitiously state if you were actually interested in dialogue.
Right, sure, you're "just asking questions" and I'm just answering them.

[Anonymous No.9827275]

>>9827205
>Yet, regardless of what I say, you will simply brush it off, post vague sources (in most cases, not all) that only remotely discuss counterpoints and then wave your moral dick around like some kind of self righteous faggot.
Projection. You're just having a tantrum because you've been refuted at every point and need an excuse to leave. Everything I said is backed up by my sources. Somehow it's my fault that people are denying scientific facts, because I'm mean to them? No it's because admitting that global warming is real, harmful, and can only be fixed by humans is ideologically inconvenient for you. That's all, same as people who deny evolution. If you disagree, I suggest backing it up with facts instead of baseless speculation and conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.9827282]

>>9827135
>It’s quite interesting to note what happens when CO2 % increases locally: plants grow / fix energy more quickly, making use of any abundance.
this only happens if they have excess amounts of iron, nitrate, and phosphate. outside of deserts and fertilized agriculture, CO2 is very rarely the limiting reagent.

[Anonymous No.9827303]

leftist here, I want the effects of climate change to be more obvious/in plain sight so that republicans can't keep denying it

what can i do to accelerate climate change?

[Anonymous No.9827307]

>Anon comes in saying anthro climate change doesn't matter
>references dozens of articles
>Misspeaks about Eccentricity
>Apparently that's all that matters
>Despite not believing Milanko cycles apparently that proves they're right
>AnthroClimate believers ignore anon about high CO2 usually precedes historical cooling.
> Claim their out of norm statistics are ignorable themselves
>Take things out of context to claim it doesn't count (The few low proxy graphs)
>Take things out of context to claim they do (So what about the little-to-no change in between these dates?)
>Pretend to not understand what the posts against climate change mean despite explanation to deflect in a soft ad-hominem


All that's missing is the pro-climate change guy that posts 2 dozen links to paywall studies they haven't read that only show abstracts and all the reply posts saying 'HAHA BTFO!"

[Anonymous No.9827329]

>>9827307
They refuse to have conversation, instead they just flame and wave their self righteous dick around claiming to be superior while bringing politics into everything constantly (something which I try to be objective as possible in) and immediately dismiss you as a right wing nutjob, put/twist your words and heavily generalize your statements, and constantly do personal attacks with only vague references to legit sources. Part of the biggest problem with the theory isn't even the theory itself, its these jackasses that refuse to be objective and turn everyone off by the above behavior. This isnt exclusive to this Mongolian basket weaving form either, this is exactly how they act in the workplace and especially in the political theater, where they have endless hordes of mindless retards waiting to pounce on anyone that even hints at being skeptical of some of the claims. They then, by any means necessary, try to ruin that person's life because to them, it isn't enough to be proven right. They are so insecure that they must irradiate any dissenters until everyone around them only holds the same view, something that is very dangerous in scientific study.

[Anonymous No.9827342]

>>9827329
Belief is fact nowadays apparently. I usually don't even bother engaging unless it's in person. I know my facts and my articles. It's much easier to have a conversation that way when your debate partner can't just Google every sentence to look for the one incorrect thing to discount your entire argument on and has to rely on actual things they know or speak out their ass.

Usually online reading I've noticed the people who tend to be more in the right don't even bother calling out previous misconducts of the people they're against and just keep rolling along until met with it themselves.

Fucking autists taking the literal dictionary definitions of terms when it suits them and claiming things mean different things when it doesn't. Who the fuck doesn't know what paraphrasing means? Shit pisses me off just due to the integrity of the arguments.

[Anonymous No.9827347]

If you judge people based on action rather than words then it becomes clear really nobody believes in climate change besides some aging commune hippies and right wing doomsday preppers

[Anonymous No.9827373]

Al Gore is a true humanitarian, he genuinely cares about the earth and its population, a diamond in the rough you might say. And I'm sure he has plenty of diamonds now since the climate in his bank account is making it rain.

Of course though, money has nothing to do with it. Yes, green energy companies will make money, A LOT of money, but it will mean we will save the earth, so it's worth it. Save the fucking earth CUNT go green, put your fucking money where your mouth is you evil, earth destroying cunt.

Do oil companies have any stake in these green energy companies? Who fucking cares if they do? That's not important. The important thing is to save humanity from impending DOOM.

[Anonymous No.9827374]

>>9827342
The sad part is they are arguing merely for narcissism because they want to win a debate, when you look at left wing policies for climate change they don't have any besides increasing taxes, and their obsession with mass immigration means growing western populations aka more climate change

If people were serious about climate change they would close the borders Japan style and let depopulation and demographic collapse run its course. But they want their cake(GDP growth so they can get more taxes) and want to eat it too(somehow save the planet while increasing GDP, ignoring that GDP and energy use are directly correlated). It makes sense once you realize all """solutions""" to climate change presented by the government involve greater taxation

Ironically, when a conservative like Trump for example proposes something that would lower emissions(close the borders) or bring back manufacturing(lower transportation costs, increase environmental standards, raise consumer prices and decrease consumption) they are attacked by the left wing

[Anonymous No.9827390]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
>Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study

>We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors.

[Anonymous No.9827395]

ITT : cognitive dissonance
>the facts disagree with my opinion
>therefore they must be fake

[Anonymous No.9827398]

>>9827390
>environmental psychology
Isn't it weird that this is a field?

[Anonymous No.9827400]

lol i haven't been on /sci/ in a while but I clicked the catalog, saw this thread and lo and behold the same old climate change denial autists is still lurking any climate change threads and posting the same identical image replies

[Anonymous No.9827403]

>>9827400
Hi Mr Gore love your work, big fan.

[Anonymous No.9827419]

>>9827390
Further evidence the climate change movement is merely a front for tax collection and increasingly draconian government oversight

Anything that requires greater centralization also requires increasing energy use, but any solution that lowers energy use goes against the neo-liberal status quo and is attacked ruthlessly, both left and right wing solutions

Lower energy use WILL happen, but it will be a result of economic collapse rather than government policy

How you would solve climate change
1. Close the borders. There is no need for mass immigration in an era where you can contact anybody anywhere using the internet, the neoliberal order will attack this using claims of racism and lowered GDP growth

2. Decentralized local manufacturing. There is no need to have goods shipped around the world using bunker fuel ships when it could be made at home. Yes it will be more expensive, but transportation energy use will be diminished and goods will be of higher quality reducing consumption. The neoliberal order will attack this solution as protectionist "populism".

3. De-suburbanization. Neoconservatives(neoliberals) will attack this one as "against american values" or some other nonsense.

4. Ban planned obsolescence. Neoconservatives(neoliberals) will attack this on as "against american capitalist values" or some other nonsense.

The political system has been perfectly designed to prevent the left AND the right from making any real climate solution, anything that goes against the neoliberal GDP growth meme will be destroyed.

[Anonymous No.9827425]

>>9827342
>>9827374
>The sad part is they are arguing merely for narcissism because they want to win a debate
They only do it to stroke their own cock. In every single one of these threads, I made it very clear that I was not denying any of the findings or the theory itself, merely that I was skeptical of how the theory was formed, the political motives behind it (especially this one), and the predicted 'end of the world' outcome. Many of the anons that argue against them state the same thing, that they are merely skeptical and want to learn more.
If they don't immediately agree with the theory, and by agree I mean whole heartily believe in every single part of it, they are viciously attacked and generalized, being lumped in automatically with the preconceived political group that they believe you to be in. From there, it does not matter how logical your argument is, how many sources you post, or what your opinion on the subject is. You are an enemy to them and they will only use ad hominems, continuously put words in your mouth, and project to high heaven by saying retarded shit like "So you're saying science is all fake?".

I also think it is very important to note which group is the one that is first to generalize the other group and the first to start lobbing insults/subtracting from the argument. *Hint hint* its the pro AGN group.

I tried as hard a possible to remain objective in my statements and not bring politics into the discussion because then they always use the /pol/ bogeyman to debase your claims. I know what political group they belong to, and honestly, that is a huge part of the problem because those type of people are all very similar in their arrogant behavior, smug personalities, and their self centered feeling of moral superiority over everyone other than their own group. They are the type of people that populate the climate science field as well, and in fact, they are the ones who politicized it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9827617]

>>9827390
600 people isn't very statistically significant. Also, people who are invested into an issue tend to think less of what they do in response to said issue. Someone who uses public transit regularly only thinks it's a significant act when they decide to use it when they need to get to a place quickly.
>>9827307
>Despite not believing Milanko cycles apparently that proves they're right
No one has claimed that milankovitch cycles don't exist. They are stating that the cycles are large scale (a cycle lasts around 100,000 years), of which the decades that are being compared are a drop in the bucket.
>AnthroClimate believers ignore anon about high CO2 usually precedes historical cooling.
Ctrl-F, cooling, no such post was made.
The last parts have no examples provided.
>>9827329
>>9827342
>>9827374
>>9827419
>>9827425
The devil is doing theology again.

[Anonymous No.9827649]

>>9827307
>references dozens of articles
The only thing close to an "article" you cited was a blog post you completely misrepresented. Oh and you misattributed a quote to the IPCC. Dozens of articles? Are you really this delusional or are you a troll?

>claims Milankovich cycles explain current warming
>doesn't even understand a single thing about them
>gets BTFO and cries
FTFY

>AnthroClimate believers ignore anon about high CO2 usually precedes historical cooling.
Ignored? You were debunked and ignored my response. See >>9825451 you delusional retard.

>Claim their out of norm statistics are ignorable themselves
>Take things out of context to claim it doesn't count (The few low proxy graphs)
>Take things out of context to claim they do (So what about the little-to-no change in between these dates?)
>Pretend to not understand what the posts against climate change mean despite explanation to deflect in a soft ad-hominem
Why are you lying?

You know you have no facts to back up your thoroughly debunked arguments, you know you lost, stop embarrassing yourself with this tantrum.

[Anonymous No.9827657]

>>9822725
>climate change
If you mean global warming, just say it. Climate change is an ambiguous abd evasive term that could include an ice age.

[Anonymous No.9827664]

>>9827649
>"you know you lost"
That is really not a good words when it comes to debate, I'm just observer but yeah I think I need to say that

[Anonymous No.9827669]

>>9827664
He stopped replying to my posts and resorted to greentexting nonsense. He knows he lost.

[Anonymous No.9827897]

>>9827374
>when you look at left wing policies for climate change they don't have any besides increasing taxes
following the usual denier tactic of "I ignore all the evidence, therefore there is no evidence"

Back in 2016, a group of scientists asked Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein 20 questions about science-related policy, including a question about energy. You can read the answers here:
>http://sciencedebate.org/sciencedebate-presidential-2016.html
Clinton gave a laundry list of reasonably specific proposals, including implementing strict efficiency and emissions standards for cars and trucks and also for fossil fuel extraction, funding research and infrastructure for clean energy products, and setting up solar panels. Trump had no specifics; he just said we should make use of every kind of energy and made a vague appeal to The Market solving the problems.
On global issues, Clinton said that the US should help developing countries exploit clean energy resources to allow them to industrialize while keeping emissions down, and that the US should also help them prepare for the unavoidable impacts (to reduce the coming destabilization potentially resulting in wars or refugee crises). Trump had nothing to say on that except that we should have a strong domestic economy.
On ocean management, Clinton promised to work with fishermen to figure out fishery management plans that wouldn't bankrupt them, and proposed an international crackdown on illegal fishing (which takes money out of the pockets of legitimate industry). Trump's only proposal was literally to ask Congress for ideas.

Go ahead, take a look at the answers and you'll see who really has policy proposals. Ignoring it won't make it go away, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9828179]

>>9827669
>Implying I'm the same person as above
Just reading through mate. Calling wins on the misuse of dictionary words and deciding personally something isn't good enough doesn't mean you win either. If that's the case everyone loses. I wouldn't respond to someone using third grade argument tactics either.

[Anonymous No.9828193]

>>9827374
>when you look at left wing policies for climate change they don't have any besides increasing taxes, and their obsession with mass immigration means growing western populations aka more climate change

I think that's about right. its exactly that kind of blatant hypocrisy which is easy for regular people to see which is the main reason the left is fracturing and populists are being elected.

I prefer the guy who says flat out he's going to screw you to the guy who says hes not then does it anyway.

[Anonymous No.9828196]

>>9828193
>kind of blatant hypocrisy
The real doozy is where they say massive oil pipelines are part of the strategy for fighting climate change. Like, hello??? Seriously?

Fuck liberals.

[Anonymous No.9828202]

>>9827897
>On global issues, Clinton said that the US should help developing countries exploit clean energy resources to allow them to industrialize while keeping emissions down, and that the US should also help them prepare for the unavoidable impacts (to reduce the coming destabilization potentially resulting in wars or refugee crises).

that's awful nice of her. was this before or after she was made the official candidate and proceeded to sabotage the democratic party by alienating white middle class voters?

[Anonymous No.9828203]

>>9827649
Once again I'm this dude:
>>9828179
Just gonna find sources through google and give you the deets.

He said he paraphrased the quote. "express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words". Easy mistake to not know the meaning for a non-english speaker.

Looking through the 2013 IPCC You can see they mention the rise for the naughts through 10 as 43ppm of CO2 in Chapter 6. His units mentioned forgot to include across the decade.
This part:
(with a usual average increase of 0.08C since the 1800s, and 0.16C from the early 70s).
Celcius units should have per decade after them. NOAA.
Just google temperature changes since the early 70s. Thats what they use.

Mixed up his eccentricity cycles but axial tilt does make a difference in seasonal warming either way and we are in a high degree which would contribute to warmer winters and cooler summers. Which would correspond with melting ice and CO2 release.
Just google Milanko cycles.

The Glacial after high CO2 cycles comes up with (abstract)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12637743
A cowriter is a French dude who works for a climate and environmental lab that words with two French universities and Simon Laplace Institute so seems pretty legit to me.

Also, I'm not lying. If you're going to take things extremely literally one second and pretend to not understand the english language the next you better not be a native english speaker or legitimately brain damaged.

60s to 90s-
Mann et. al. from 1999 does say the 90's were the warmest period in the last millenium, maybe you're right. But then you have to contend with Petit et al from 1999 that based their findings off the east antartican vostok ice core (apparently way more legit than tree rings) that shows it's cooler than the last four interglacial average and that CO2 is relatively the same.

Out of space to go into the low proxies and stuff but hopefully you aren't brain damaged and just don't speak English.

[Anonymous No.9828243]

>>9827897
>Clinton said that the US should help developing countries exploit clean energy resources to allow them to industrialize while keeping emissions down
Unless she specifically means nuclear (which she didn't) then you cannot industrialize a nation on renewable energies (other than perhaps geothermal if the conditions are right) because they are irregular, sporadic, and overall poor methods of generating large amounts of energy consistently. And then energy storage becomes an issue and making the batteries does 100000x more immediate damage than anything co2 could do in 1000 years. Yet no one seems to care about this because then their business ventures and power schemes would not be viable.

[Anonymous No.9828252]

>>9828203
He also cherry-picked one particular sentence from the abstract of the source i posted and did the typical
>HAHA BTFO
Because I was using the source as an example of how they essentially only use Antarctic ice core data for ancient atmospheric co2 concentrations. He also did the classic
>HAHA U FUKIN RETARD DID YOU EVEN READ THE SOURCE? WRONG
when he didn't even post the source article.
I'm fairly certian that he is, in fact, retarded because this is how a large portion of the AGW crowd behaves.
It always boils down to skeptics being conflated with deniers and right wing nutjobs and the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' will be used to debase any further evidence put forth from the other side.

[Anonymous No.9828295]

>>9828243
>Yet no one seems to care about this
That's probably because you made it up.

[Anonymous No.9828337]

>>9828295
Made what up exactly?

[Anonymous No.9828367]

>>9828179
Your analysis is worthless. You completely ignored or misrepresented every substantive argument I made and confused the inability of Milankovich cycles to explain current warming for semantics. Either respond with substance or fuck off. This constant meta-arguing is simply a method of evading the facts that every denier falls back on once they realize reality disagrees with them. Whine all you want, anyone coming into this thread can see whose argument is left standing.

[Anonymous No.9828408]

>>9828203
>He said he paraphrased the quote.
He posted a quote from a group of deniers called the NIPCC and claimed it was from the IPCC. So if you are going to argue he paraphrased something he read, you'll have to explain how his paraphrase perfectly matched up with a quote from someone else who was not paraphrasing the IPCC. In reality, he found a quote on some denier blog, confused NIPCC for IPCC, and then instead of admitting the mistake, doubled down and lied about it being a paraphrase.

>Looking through the 2013 IPCC You can see they mention the rise for the naughts through 10 as 43ppm of CO2 in Chapter 6....
That's great, but it has nothing to do with the quote he claimed was a paraphrase. I didn't even point out or care that he got those details wrong. You are completely missing the point.

[Anonymous No.9828420]

>>9828203
>Mixed up his eccentricity cycles but axial tilt does make a difference in seasonal warming either way and we are in a high degree which would contribute to warmer winters and cooler summers. Which would correspond with melting ice and CO2 release.
LOL first read my posts, I've already debunked this. The most rapid warming the Milankovich cycles produce is interglacial warming. This only occurs when the orbital cycles align in the correct way to maximise radiative forcing at certain parts of the year in order to drive climate feedbacks. The slowest cycle that has to align is eccentricity. Go look at the graph >>9825715. See that interglacial warming (those big spikes that are highlighted) occur if and only if eccentricity is increasing and end when eccentricity peaks. So in order for Milankovich cycles to produce the highest warming rate they can, eccentricity needs to be increasing. But eccentricity is not increasing. It peaked 10000 years ago, when interglacial warming ended. And even if it had not, interglacial warming is an order of magnitude slower than what we are currently observing. So claiming that the warming trend we are seeing now is a result of us warming out of a glacial period is doubly nonsense. Interglacial warming should not be occurring now according to the cycles and it could not produce this rapid rate of warming in the first place.

Now for some reason both you and the other guy can't seem to grasp this argument even though I spent several posts explaining it.

[Anonymous No.9828436]

>>9828203
>The Glacial after high CO2 cycles comes up with (abstract)
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12637743
The original claim was that glacials occurred when CO2 was 5 times higher. Of course this is false as I showed. The claim that glacials come *after* high CO2 levels is a different claim, and vaguely true, since glacial cooling occurs once eccentricity peaks, turning off the feedback loop that increases CO2 in the atmosphere. That's when the oceans start to absorb more CO2 and the atmosphere slowly cools into a glacial. Saying that glacials occur after CO2 peaks does not help your position, since CO2 had to stop increasing for cooling to occur.

>Also, I'm not lying.
So please explain where I did these things.

>But then you have to contend with Petit et al from 1999 that based their findings off the east antartican vostok ice core (apparently way more legit than tree rings) that shows it's cooler than the last four interglacial average and that CO2 is relatively the same.
This is irrelevant, you need to go back and read my posts. I did not claim the 60s-90s period was the warmest in 600,000 years. I said it was the warmest in the instrumental record. Nor do I care, as I already explained, it's not the temperature or the amount of CO2 that's necessarily the issue, it's the rapid change in both that's the issue. It's not global warmth, it's global warming. The fundamental issue is that we and the ecosystems we rely on have evolved in a certain stable range of climate, and we've built infrastructure that was designed for that climate. Rapidly changing the climate does not give us time to adapt and causes large amounts of harm to those systems.

Also, the original claim was that using the 60s-90s average as a baseline temperature is somehow misleading. In reality the choice of baseline has no effect on anything we were discussing. I attempted to get an explanation of this but this was ignored. Maybe you can explain.

[Anonymous No.9828446]

i was alive 80s 90s 00s and 10s.

80s were cold, 90s became very warm towards Y2K, 00s started cooling after 08, it has gotten colder since then to the point snow is falling where it has never fallen before, winters are longer and noticeably colder harsher, stranger weather, wild winds, storms etc.

if you ask an older person their impression of the weather im sure it will align with this general preception of cooling in the south and warming in the north.

t. southern hemisphere

[Anonymous No.9828452]

>>9828252
>He also cherry-picked one particular sentence from the abstract of the source i posted
That one particular sentence was the only thing in it close to your claim. Either you read it and failed to understand it and are now refusing to admit the mistake, or you understood it and deliberately misrepresented it. I'll be generous and assume the former. Oh and there was no abstract, it's a blog post. But feel free to go ahead and show me where it says what you claimed it said instead of whining about it.

>Because I was using the source as an example of how they essentially only use Antarctic ice core data for ancient atmospheric co2 concentrations.
Ancient, meaning older than 650,000 years. Which has nothing to do with the reconstruction I posted that goes back 2000 years.

You are in denial about having no argument. You could have responded with substance, instead you doubled down on your mistakes.

[Anonymous No.9828468]

>>9828252
You are literally in denial about the facts presented in this thread, buddy.

[Anonymous No.9828617]

>>9828252
Maybe there was a different source than the one I found. That's just what I found buddy. I don't know how you're claiming victory against someone else for what I found. I'm not your librarian, nor am I your mom to spoonfeed you. Go take the drawings of your colorful scribble line graphs, put them back in your picture book beause aside from that you posted no sources either.

>>9828367
But when he made that mistake that's all your argument was based on. Not on anything else aside from pointing out that one thing.

>>9828408
Even if that and not a paraphrase it still ends up using the same data. So if it's a mistake from another group using the same info and lines up with what the beginning of the quote is about then it's either semantics to accept or refuse the claimed portion on the increase being substantial or not.

>>9828420
You never claimed the alignment of cycles. You claimed eccentricity. Also in your graph you can see without eccentricity but with high axial tilt there is a correspondence between higher temperatures that's about equal to high eccentricity and lower axial tilt.
Also I like how you and another guy are claiming the same posts on this.

>>9828436
Warmest instrumental period then. It's just past the middle of a rain storm. There's a leak a roof with a bucket under it. BETWEEN HERE AND HERE IS THE BASELINE! you call. You go make tea or a sandwich and come back. WE'RE GOING TO DROWN! LOOK IT'S RISING! I KNEW IT. Of course it is. But now you're incorrectly estimating all the water you missed claiming this bucket indicates something different than all the other storms somehow and you also started watching the water level in the middle of the rain storm surprised you caught more water and it didn't just stop.
In an uprising graph you're using point with a slope of 0 and claiming past it shows rise. Of course it will.

I will admit the only negative aspect of humans I see are situations of deforestation, natural Carbon to Oxygen filters.

[Anonymous No.9828772]

>>9828617
>I don't know how you're claiming victory
Do you know what projection is? Because you are doing this unbelievably well.

[Anonymous No.9828832]

>>9825784
>Stop debunking our religion of global doom with objective data!

[Anonymous No.9828871]

>>9828617
>>>9828252 #
>Maybe there was a different source than the one I found.
Who are you even replying to? What source?

>But when he made that mistake that's all your argument was based on.
Which mistake are you referring to?

>Even if that and not a paraphrase it still ends up using the same data.
The data does not show an absence of significant warming for 16 years. Try again.

>You never claimed the alignment of cycles. You claimed eccentricity.
Wrong, see >>9825713: "The increase in solar irradiance when the Earth is near perihelion, along with the effects of other orbital cycles that coincide with the phases of increasing eccentricity, drives unusually large amounts of CO2 and water vapor to be released from the oceans, creating a positive feedback loop between warming and greenhouse gas emissions." Try again.

>Also in your graph you can see without eccentricity but with high axial tilt there is a correspondence between higher temperatures that's about equal to high eccentricity and lower axial tilt.
Which is even more irrelevant since obliquity produces even less rapid warming and is currently in the middle of its range and decreasing. Again, I don't know how many times I need to tell you, Milankovich cycles cannot produce this warming, since they are currently in a cooling phase and can't produce warming of this rate even if they were in a warming phase.

>WE'RE GOING TO DROWN! LOOK IT'S RISING! I KNEW IT.
Regardless of what baseline you choose, it would be rising. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The baseline is just a reference point for comparing two different sets of data. For example, comparing the instrumental record to a projection of global temperature. The baseline has no effect on rates of warming displayed in either data set. It just allows you to overlay one over the other because they both have the average temperature from 60-90 as their 0 point on the temperature scale. I am getting really sick of this nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9828891]

>>9828832
>muh Lindzen and Choi
Nice pathological science.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html

[Anonymous No.9828914]

>>9828243
>Unless she specifically means nuclear (which she didn't)
direct quote from her response on nuclear power:
"Meeting the climate challenge is too important to limit the tools available in this fight. Nuclear power – which accounts for more than 60 percent of our zero carbon power generation today – is one of those tools. I will work to ensure that the climate benefits of our existing nuclear power plants that are safe to operate are appropriately valued and increase investment in the research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power."
so yeah, she did mean nuclear, dumbass.
Trump, meanwhile, responded with his usual word salad:
"We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make."

>you cannot industrialize a nation on renewable energies
notice I said "clean energy resources", not "renewables only". That means using gas and oil and nuclear rather than coal, installing scrubbers etc. to minimize pollution from industry and power plants, and exploiting what renewables ARE feasible to reduce how much fossil fuels are consumed. there's plenty that can be done to reduce the harm without choking off economies.

>making the batteries does 100000x more immediate damage than anything co2 could do in 1000 years
just making shit up now, are we?
>he thinks batteries are necessary for short-term energy storage
>he doesn't know about supercapacitors, flywheels, PHES, or all the other ways to store energy for a power grid

read a book niBBa

[Anonymous No.9829076]

>>9828871
His mistake of the eccentricity. That's all your argument is based on now. You keep going back to it. You're even ignoring the other parts that make up warming, agreeing they make up warming, and denying they're playing a part right now based on that one part.
Axial tilt is decreasing and it's currently in the upper middle bound.
We're not talking solely about Milanko cycles but you keep making the argument about Milanko cycles so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.

The choice of baseline is the point, but when you could choose a more reasonable baseline, such as how this interglacial period was still historically cooler than others in the past and only looking back when you want to reference something that you can use in your argument and ignoring past data saying its irrelevant when it proves to be against you.
You can't claim a baseline as a point in itself to reference the near past as a predictor of the future when it was rising anyways.

[Anonymous No.9829112]

>>9828914
>direct quote from her response on nuclear power:
Her actions towards nuclear would suggest that she was simply pandering as all politicians do

>notice I said "clean energy resources", not "renewables only". That means using gas and oil and nuclear rather than coal, installing scrubbers etc. to minimize pollution from industry and power plants, and exploiting what renewables ARE feasible to reduce how much fossil fuels are consumed. there's plenty that can be done to reduce the harm without choking off economies.
Fair point. I agree and thought you meant solar and wind since those are usually what are referenced when discussing renewable energy.

>just making shit up now, are we?

For lithium batteries, on of the main methods of extracting lithium is by leaching where massive pools of nasty lithium salts are allowed to evaporate in massive outdoor pools. This creates massive pools of toxic lithium salts which can easily get into the local water system through diffusion or accidents (although accidents can happen in any situation so they do not really contribute to this). The batteries themselves are filled with organic lithium compounds and each cell needs to be regulated by control circuity, not to mention they are volatile and prone to catastrophic failure. Overall the lithium polymer cells are very volatile and are not suitable, at least not yet, for massive grid storage.
Lead acid batteries and possibly nickel hydride could be used but these are also pretty nasty in terms of heavy metal content and manufacturing.

>he thinks batteries are necessary for short-term energy storage
>he doesn't know about supercapacitors, flywheels, PHES, or all the other ways to store energy for a power grid

>supercapacitors & flywheels
Supercapacitors are getting promising, but they still do not have the capacity to provide the required storage. Not to mention they are typically rated for low voltages so many of them are needed for usable storage voltages.

[Anonymous No.9829148]

>>9828914
CONT
>Flywheels
Flywheels are a novelty for energy storage because they constantly disipate energy through aerodynamic forces, need to be spun at very high speeds to be feasible, are extremely dangerous, and will have very high maintenance costs due to wear. You would have to have an insanely fast spinning, heavy flywheel to even think about them being feasible for energy storage for more than a small hut.

>PHES
Yes because heat engines are notorious for their efficiency. Maybe if you had one side at cryogenic temperatures and the other at a few hundred degrees, you could get an efficiency ONE WAY of 70-80%. When you go to use the energy after storing it you are looking at 20-30% loss, at the aforementioned conditions mind you, so you would have a very inefficient method of energy storage. Not to mention that the hardware associated with it would be very expensive to both purchase and maintain and would be prone to failure. Cryogenic systems have many risks associated with them and would be the only way to make any sort energy storage even remotely efficient.

>all the other ways to store energy for a power grid
The only semi-feasible thing that I can think of would be potential energy storage via water pumping but the infrastructure for this would be massive and would probably do more damage to the environment than it would prevent.

[Anonymous No.9829219]

>>9829076
>His mistake of the eccentricity. That's all your argument is based on now.
No, you fucking retard. I've said from the beginning, and I just told you, and I'm not going to tell you again that my argument is two-fold: the Milankovich cycles are not in a warming phase and can't produce such rapid warming anyway. Get it through your think skull. None of you fuckwits have even correctly understood the argument let alone countered it.

>We're not talking solely about Milanko cycles but you keep making the argument about Milanko cycles so you can keep saying the same thing over and over.
This entire line of discussion was started by the claim that Milankovich cycles explain current warming. Whenever you want to admit that's false, we can move on. And why the fuck are you responding to my posts about Milankovich cycles if you aren't talking about them? Fuck off already.

>The choice of baseline is the point, but when you could choose a more reasonable baseline, such as how this interglacial period was still historically cooler than others in the past and only looking back when you want to reference something that you can use in your argument and ignoring past data saying its irrelevant when it proves to be against you.
>You can't claim a baseline as a point in itself to reference the near past as a predictor of the future when it was rising anyways.
Are you having a stroke? This is word salad and doesn't respond to anything I said. Let's try again: the choice of baseline has no effect on trends. It is used to align two data sets' temperature scales. I have yet to see a coherent explanation about what this objection to the baseline is even about. Give me a specific example.

[Anonymous No.9829245]

>>9829219
>The argument isn't about Milanko cycles!
>The Milanko cycles...!
Are you just taking the piss now?

You admitted yourself that the parts of Milanko cycles can cause warming. I point out how one of those is happening and you deny it saying because the rest of the universe isn't aligned it doesnt count despite your graph that you religiously point to shows that it still does while the eccentricity was in a downturn.

Stop getting upset that your evidence is pointing against you and trying to pull misunderstanding and fallacies out of the air.

[Anonymous No.9829257]

>>9829245
>>The argument isn't about Milanko cycles!
When did I say this argument wasn't about Milankovich cycles? You're either delusional or a fucking liar. Which one is it?

>You admitted yourself that the parts of Milanko cycles can cause warming. I point out how one of those is happening
I already pointed out that it's not happening, axial tilt is decreasing. Get the facts straight you stupid fuck.

>you deny it saying because the rest of the universe isn't aligned it doesnt count despite your graph that you religiously point to shows that it still does while the eccentricity was in a downturn.
No, that's not what I said you illiterate buffoon. NONE OF THE CYCLES ARE IN THE WARMING PHASE. NONE OF THEM. NOT SOME OF THEM, NONE OF THEM. FUCK OFF.

[Anonymous No.9829258]

>>9829219
Not >>9829076
But I agree with you that the Milanko cycles are not responsible for the current warming trend and that they are currently heading towards a cooling trend. It may be unironically good, if the AGW theory is correct, that we are warming the planet because an ice age would be unfathomably more disastrous than any amount of heating predicted by even the most severe models.

> the choice of baseline has no effect on trends
Yes, it can have profound effects on trends depending on what timescale you are looking at.
A very extreme example of this would be the following:
>you want to predict the high temperature for the day
>to do this, you will look primarily at the temperature starting at 5 AM in the morning and take samples every couple minutes
>5 AM rolls around and you record a temperature of 50F
>6 AM 54F
>7 AM 59F
>8 AM 64F
>9 AM 72F
>you make your prediction at this point and say 'wow, by 1 PM it's going to be 178F !!!!'

Now before you sperg, I agree, this is not the best example and it is extreme but the point is that the baseline and time scale are critical for determining whether something is a trend or whether or not it is 'noise' so you can't just disregard the baseline because the baseline is what sets the timescale.

[Anonymous No.9829269]

>>9829258
>It may be unironically good, if the AGW theory is correct, that we are warming the planet because an ice age would be unfathomably more disastrous than any amount of heating predicted by even the most severe models.
This is like saying it's good to be obese, because it's better than starving. Non sequitur. The next glacial period (not ice age, we are in and have always been in an ice age) is in tens of thousands of years. The negative effects of global warming are being seen right now and in the next hundred years.

>A very extreme example of this would be the following:
No, you have no idea what a baseline is if you think this is an example. Instead of making shit up, why don't you look up what the word means in the context of climatology?

Again, the baseline is simply what you set as 0 on the temperature scale for the purposes of aligning two data sets. It has zero effect on any single data set or set of predictions. In your example, you could set the average observed temperature as the baseline of 0F. Then when you make a predictive model, you would set the average temperature from 5 AM to 9AM as 0F. Then when you want to compare your model to the temperature record, you would simply overlay them using the same temperature scale. If you made your baseline of 0F the temperature at 5AM instead, what would the result be? It doesn't change anything about your predictive model, it still predicts the same amount of warming from one time to the next. That's the ridiculous part of your example, the temperature change. No, the only difference will be that when you compare your prediction to the temperature record it will depend heavily on whatever difference there is between 5AM in the record and 5AM in your model. So if your model is not good at describing the temperature at 5AM, the comparison will look bad.

[Anonymous No.9829274]

>>9825715
This looks to me like it should be going into a cooling faze right now.

[Anonymous No.9829275]

>>9829274
*phase

[Anonymous No.9829276]

>>9829274
Yes, we should be cooling according to the natural cycle of temperature change, but we're not, because the cause is not natural. That is my point. Congratulations, you understood something most of the idiots in this thread couldn't.

[Anonymous No.9829277]

>>9825715
Anyway, it seems from that that biological interactions would be the main cause. i.e. once something kicks off the cycle, we'd get glacial interglacial cycles without any milankovitch cycles.

[Anonymous No.9829283]

>>9829277
Yeah, it's called CO2 emissions. Guess who's emitting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.9829286]

>>9829283
>Guess who's emitting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?
hmmm.... who could it be?

[Anonymous No.9829289]

>>9825715
Either biological or some other process is driving that spring. Maybe ocean circulation too. The oceans must have massively long relaxation timescales.

[Anonymous No.9829291]

>>9825715
[math]\tau[/math]

[Anonymous No.9829292]

>>9829289
The oceans don't drive anything, their effects are all determined by temperature.

[Anonymous No.9829297]

>>9829292
>>9825715
Seems like temperature fluctuations have lower frequency than the sum of orbital parameters. What's the current theory on why that's the case?

[Anonymous No.9829300]

>>9829297
Feedback loops, primarily the fact that warmer oceans out-gas water vapor and CO2, which causes more warming via the greenhouse effect. This is why interglacial warming is rapid and cooling is slow.

[Anonymous No.9829306]

>>9829300
So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.

[Anonymous No.9829311]

>>9829306
re rather, they fluctuate at much higher frequency, and therefore wouldn't have time to reach the same amplitude because of the long relaxation time of the oceans.

[Anonymous No.9829314]

>>9822771
y e s

[Anonymous No.9829315]

>>9829306
No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely. A very long time ago, massive algae and plankton blooms drew lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then were deposited on the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these deposits of carbon were turned into fossil fuels. At the same time, the climate was slowly cooling due to there being less greenhouse gases. Eventually it reached the nice relatively stable climate that humans evolved in. For many thousands of years, humans flourished. Eventually we discovered the fossil fuels and started releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Guess what happens next.

[Anonymous No.9829332]

>>9829315
>The effects of biology only change rarely.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, since neither of us appears to want to dig up citations. I'm sure it's still heavily debated in the community. Models do not capture the complex interactions - not even close. That's why I think scientists should focus on the physical properties of the atmosphere rather rather than proxies. Work in that area is a lot more definitive.

[Anonymous No.9829344]

>>9822725
hmmmmm... who should I believe, some anonymous x/pol crossposter conspiritard, or 99% of climate scientists?
hard choice

[Anonymous No.9829348]

>>9829332
Models capture the most significant parts, which is why they are currently accurately projecting global temps. And climatologists don't focus on proxies, that is only a small part of climatology. Nor does the theory of AGW depend on proxies. They are only supporting evidence, the basis of the theory is atmospheric physics and direct observation of the radiative balance. If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.

[Anonymous No.9829350]

>>9829348
holy fuck. these /pol/tards really have gotten you quite worked up havent they.... lol

[Anonymous No.9829359]

>>9829348
>And climatologists don't focus on proxies
There are probably 10x as many climatologists focusing on proxies than ones who focus on physics - and that's what this thread seems to be focused on as well. Relax.

[Anonymous No.9829373]

>>9829359
>There are probably 10x as many climatologists focusing on proxies than ones who focus on physics
I just love you how you delusional people continue to pretend you know anything about climatology after being BTFO again and again over the most basic concepts in the field. So excuse me if I take your opinion on what is "probably" true about climatology and throw it in the trash. No, the vast majority are focused on current and future climate, not paleoclimatology.

>and that's what this thread seems to be focused on as well.
The only reason this thread is focused on past climate is because one of you fuckwits claimed that Milankovich cycles cause current warming, and won't admit that this is false despite me repeatedly demolishing the claim. If anything it's you retards that are focused on proxies, not climatologies.

[Anonymous No.9829375]

>>9829348
t. retard who knows nothing about science

[Anonymous No.9829378]

>>9829373
jesus, but you are an abrasive twat... you have no idea who you're talking to - not at all. you don't read well since you didn't even realize I'm sort of on your side on this. you're quick to lump anyone who even disagrees with you in the slightest into the camp of people who you hate ("deniers"). honestly, you could probably prevent global warming just be removing yourself from the debate.

[Anonymous No.9829390]

>>9829378
I don't care if "you're sort of on my side" if you lie about climatologists focusing on proxies. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9829403]

>>9829390
It's clear that you're nothing more than a fucking lawyer with a passion for climate science, and it shows. You call regular people who also have a genuine interest in the science liars - its abrasive and insulting. Please, please, for the love of god, just remove yourself from the debate. You're doing more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.9829408]

>>9829403
So do climatologists focus on proxies or not? I'm confused because nothing in this post is related to that, just whining about how mean I am.

[Anonymous No.9829416]

>>9829408
At least half do, these days yes. Partly because the physics going into the models can't really get much more advanced.

Honestly, this debate shouldn't be happening. The science was solid 30 years ago. I think part of the reason so many focus on proxies now, is because that's where the deniers and powerful interests have focused their attacks on the science.

[Anonymous No.9829446]

>>9829416
>At least half do, these days yes.
No, only 7% of climate research is in the paleoclimate catoegory:

See http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291suppdata.pdf

[Anonymous No.9829447]

>>9829378
>>9829403
This is exactly what I was saying here>>9827425
>If they don't immediately agree with the theory, and by agree I mean whole heartily believe in every single part of it, they are viciously attacked and generalized, being lumped in automatically with the preconceived political group that they believe you to be in. From there, it does not matter how logical your argument is, how many sources you post, or what your opinion on the subject is. You are an enemy to them and they will only use ad hominems, continuously put words in your mouth, and project to high heaven by saying retarded shit like "So you're saying science is all fake?

I explained the reasons why I was skeptical through many posts, I have found sources to back up some of my claims and these faggots (there are a few of them) simply reply
>'wrong. check the facts retard'
Or post half-assed sources, or make references to sources and dont link them then proceed to demean the other person for not reading them.
I can fully respect people having different insights on a subject than I do, but this attitude that >>9829408
is displaying is all to common in the climatology field which is part of the reason why there are so many skeptics.

[Anonymous No.9829452]

>>9829446
ok, just looking at the 2nd graph - discounting mitigation/impacts... its closer to 1/3...

lets meet in the middle here. come on, man.

[Anonymous No.9829454]

>>9829447
>I explained the reasons why I was skeptical through many posts, I have found sources to back up some of my claims and these faggots (there are a few of them) simply reply
I explained to you very clearly why you're wrong. The few sources you did cite were either irrelevant or misrepresented. Instead of responding to my counter-arguments, you ignore that they exist. You lost, admit it.

>Or post half-assed sources
Like what?

>or make references to sources and dont link them then proceed to demean the other person for not reading them.
Like what?

>is displaying is all to common in the climatology field which is part of the reason why there are so many skeptics.
BAHAHAHA, yu have already proven to know nothing about climatology, your opinion is objectively worthless.

[Anonymous No.9829464]

>>9829447
Yes, calling people liars is no way to go about having a debate. It does more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.9829465]

>>9829452
Research focusing on proxies would not be categorized as mitigation or impacts. You're grasping at straws. Don't be in denial, just admit the mistake and move on.

[Anonymous No.9829474]

>>9829465
lol, I think you're mentally ill.... You actually believe you know everything, yet can't think critically about what you're reading.

The graph is divided into 4 categories. Methods, mitigation, impacts, and paleo.

"Methods" is the physics part, and the part where people build the climate models (and the weather forecast models too btw) - which is what we're talking about. That also btw includes things like satellite/ and weather station validation, which is more like atmospheric science than climatology and effectively brings the number of scientists working on actual climate problems down even further. Mitigation/impacts isn't really climatology - more like economics...

Don't be in denial, just admit the mistake and move on.

[Anonymous No.9829485]

>>9829474
>lol, I think you're mentally ill.... You actually believe you know everything, yet can't think critically about what you're reading.
I only actually believe what the evidence shows, which is that paleoclimatology, which includes proxies is only 7% of climate research. So the contention that climatologists are focused on proxies is nonsense. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9829493]

>>9829454
>>or make references to sources and dont link them then proceed to demean the other person for not reading them.
>Like what?
>Maybe there was a different source than the one I found. That's just what I found buddy.

>>Or post half-assed sources
>Like what?
You are right. I mean the lack of sources.

>I explained to you very clearly why you're wrong.
Yes because focusing in on one inconsequential statement made, while ignoring all the other points, and then calling the other person a retard and that their opinion is worthless is an outstanding way to explain things very clearly.

>BAHAHAHA, yu have already proven to know nothing about climatology, your opinion is objectively worthless
>HUR DUR u disagree wit my group so everything ur group do bad
This has been every single post you have made throughout the entire thread, even with people who agree with you mostly. If they do anything other than shun any form of skepticism, you throw them right in that group and act like the asshat you are.

[Anonymous No.9829496]

>>9829485
>Try again.

No. I'm tired of trying. You're insane, and I'm cutting my losses now.

[Anonymous No.9829500]

>>9829485
>I only actually believe what the evidence shows, which is that paleoclimatology....
The discussion was about proxy sources being used and paleoclimatology was an example given. Just because it was an example does not mean it is the only source of proxies, which the other anon very clearly stated, but you are too fucking dense to even fathom that what you said could be possibly incorrect. Instead of acting logically, you act like an deranged autist and only focus on that particular part of the argument and refuse to acknowledge any other parts.

[Anonymous No.9829521]

>>9827303
more of the same, once the co2 ppm hits 450, it'll become self-sustaining.
This will happen around 2030.
After that, the human race can go down to zero emission and it won't help anymore, the earth's AGW will keep up going.

[Anonymous No.9829525]

>>9829493
>Maybe there was a different source than the one I found. That's just what I found buddy.
This isn't me, you idiot. It's the guy I was arguing with. Jesus Christ, is it possible for you to make a single post without making yourself look like a fool?

>You are right. I mean the lack of sources.
I certainly posted more sources than you ever did.

>Yes because focusing in on one inconsequential statement made, while ignoring all the other points
You're projecting, you pathetic liar. I have responded to every substantive point made. You have not.

>This has been every single post you have made throughout the entire thread, even with people who agree with you mostly. If they do anything other than shun any form of skepticism, you throw them right in that group and act like the asshat you are.
I don't care if you agree with me, I care whether your claims are correct. I have shown your claims to be incorrect. When you want to stop crying about it, and resume arguing about anything of substance, tell me. Until then, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9829527]

>>9827303
more of the same, once the co2 ppm hits 450, it'll become self-sustaining.
This will happen around 2030.
After that, the human race can go down to zero emission and it won't help anymore, the earth's AGW will keep on going.

[Anonymous No.9829531]

>>9829496
Right, I'm "insane" because I showed you were wrong with evidence and you can't own up to it. Why don't you take your own advice and convince me I'm wrong with evidence instead of calling me names? Oh, because you have no evidence...

[Anonymous No.9829540]

>>9829531
From your own source, I'd like you to explain how "mitigation" and "impacts" is climate science. I've already given you a chance to address this issue, but nstead of doing so you just keep telling everyone how they're wrong and you're right and they're having a tantrum and crying and lying and bla bla bla, over and over again, ad nauseum.

Your whole debate style can be summarized as just just digging up papers, briefly skimming through them and misreading them, then when people call your bluff and actually read them and show you how you're mistaken you just stick your fingers in your ears and start crying liar liar.

You really oughta just remove yourself from the debate. You're embarrassing yourself and misrepresenting climate scientists as a bunch of pretentious elitist know it all twats.

[Anonymous No.9829545]

>>9823321
>crickets
pol/tards, the synonym for impotent

[Anonymous No.9829568]

>>9829540
>From your own source, I'd like you to explain how "mitigation" and "impacts" is climate science. I've already given you a chance to address this issue
Excuse me, but where did you ask me to address this? Claiming that I neglected to answer a question you never asked is not an honest debate tactic. You made the claim, you need to explain to me why climate research about mitigation and impacts of climate change by climatologists do not represent what climatologists are researching. Good luck.

>Your whole debate style can be summarized as just just digging up papers, briefly skimming through them and misreading them, then when people call your bluff and actually read them and show you how you're mistaken you just stick your fingers in your ears and start crying liar liar.
What papers have I misread?

You really ought to just remove yourself from the debate. You're embarrassing yourself and misrepresenting climate science by not even getting basic concepts right.

[Anonymous No.9829571]

>>9829540
Why don't you take your own advice and convince me I'm wrong with evidence instead of calling me names?

[Anonymous No.9829577]

>>9829568
>Excuse me, but where did you ask me to address this?
First here:
>>9829452
2nd time here:
>>9829474

Twice you ignored my point and instead just resorted to your usual abrasive name calling ad hominem bs.

It's all right there. And still you are not addressing my point (for a 3rd time now)
>I'd like you to explain how "mitigation" and "impacts" is climate science.
instead resorting to your usual tactics of putting your fingers in your ears and crying liar liar.

And I mean, its not like what we're currently arguing about is even central to the AGW and what to do about it issue. My god man, pick your battles for chirst sake. Where do you get the energy? Are you just naturally argumentative/confrontational? Is it the thrill of the fight (/debate, lol) that you like? I mean I can respect that, but come on....

>You're embarrassing yourself and misrepresenting climate science by not even getting basic concepts right.

This is actually pretty comical. I'm seriously laughing right now.

[Anonymous No.9829589]

>>9829568
>research about mitigation and impacts of climate change

This is politics and economics.

[Anonymous No.9829591]

>>9829568
I bet you also think economics is a science.

[Anonymous No.9829597]

>>9829591
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.9829602]

>>9829577
No I don't see you asking me to explain anything, just you claiming that they are not climatologists.

Climatology is simply the scientific study of the climate. The impacts of climate change and mitigation of climate change are part of that study.

>>9829589
None of the studies were published in economic or political journals.

Here is the list of papers http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

Tell me which ones are not climatology.

[Anonymous No.9829604]

>>9829527
>more of the same, once the co2 ppm hits 450, it'll become self-sustaining.
I'm not aware of any credible source that says that.
Where are you getting this from?

>>9829589
>>research about mitigation and impacts of climate change
>This is politics and economics.
Not really. Understanding the changes in things like temperature and precipitation distribution is central to understanding the impacts of AGW.

[Anonymous No.9829612]

>>9829604
>temperature and precipitation distribution is central to understanding the impacts of AGW
that has nothing to do with mitigation, or methods.

he's assuming anyone who works in atmospheric science is also a climate scientist which isn't true. More people are working in the paleo area than 7%.

[Anonymous No.9829615]

>>9829602
>Tell me which ones are not climatology.
Tell me how mitigation (which is basically all about humans' choice whether or not to keep ghg out of the atmosphere), has anything to do with science.

[Anonymous No.9829618]

>>9829612
Here is a paper categorized as an impact study which you claim is not climatology:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2011JCLI4101.1

[Anonymous No.9829622]

>>9829612
>that has nothing to do with mitigation
How so? Mitigation and Impacts are very strongly coupled.

[Anonymous No.9829625]

>>9829618
"Impacts" = scientists using the models developed by "Methods".

I'll concede "impacts" is climate science, but mitigation is not. On the other hand, "methods" could probably be discounted because that is atmospheric science (model development), not climate science. It sill puts the total fraction of climate scientists working on paleo well over 7%

[Anonymous No.9829627]

>>9829622
>Mitigation and Impacts
Sure. But mitigation is a human choice (i.e. not science). and impacts is scientific hypothetical.

As I said, mitigation is more economics and politics.

[Anonymous No.9829633]

>>9829625
So most climate research is not focused on proxies, glad we agree.

[Anonymous No.9829634]

>>9829627
>But mitigation is a human choice
Understanding what the consequences of different mitigation strategies will be is a part of Mitigation, and that's definitely climatology. An example from a previous thread: painting surfaces like rooftops white is a mitigation strategy that gets brought up from time to time, but the impacts that would have both regionally and globally are actually quite complex.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/HeatIsland+WhiteRfs0911.pdf

[Anonymous No.9829636]

>>9829625
Even if you remove mitigation, you get less than 10% paleoclimate.

[Anonymous No.9829640]

>>9829636
remove methods too and its around 15%

[Anonymous No.9829642]

>>9829634
>different mitigation strategies
but the bulk of the talk around that is no doubt around carbon budgets though

[Anonymous No.9829644]

>>9829634
>consequences of different mitigation strategies
you should have said "costs and consequences" which = economics... its definitely a grey area as far science is concerned.

[Anonymous No.9829654]

>>9829633
I already went down to 1/3.

Anyway, keep in mind that paleoclimate also relies heavily on sciences like biology, geochemistry, geology, geomorphology, paleontology etc. A lot of these scientists aren't considered climate scientists even though they contribute significantly to the paleoclimate body of work.

[Anonymous No.9829656]

>>9829642
>but the bulk of the talk around that is no doubt around carbon budgets though
So?

>>9829644
>you should have said "costs and consequences" which = economics
I meant consequences on the climate. Not economics.

[Anonymous No.9829658]

>>9829633
sedimentology as well? Is that consider paleoclimate science?

[Anonymous No.9829662]

>>9829656
mitigation = how to prevent ghg from entering atmosphere. you cant talk about that without talking about economics.

[Anonymous No.9829672]

>>9829633
glaciology as well. there are a tonne of scientists that do work in paleoclimate without being strictly considered climate scientists. Its kind of a hot topic lately.

[Anonymous No.9829676]

>>9829604
https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-450-ppm-is-not-safe.html

[Anonymous No.9829681]

>>9829604
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=once+the+co2+ppm+hits+450&t=lm&ia=web

[Anonymous No.9829849]

Could someone list several reasons why we should really care about climate change if it does exist? Even if some important species go extinct, us as a species will survive. Even if there are more natural disasters, we will still likely survive and thrive given our technological advancements.

[Anonymous No.9829868]

>>9829112
>Her actions towards nuclear would suggest that she was simply pandering as all politicians do
what actions are those?

>there are issues of potential contamination associated with battery manufacture
>therefore it's far far worse than anything carbon emissions could cause
you are a literal retard if you think the second follows from the first. nice total lack of quantification/estimates for those btw.

>>9829148
>potential energy storage via water pumping
that's what PHES stands for: pumped hydroelectric energy storage
and the infrastructure for it isn't that bulky.

you're just digging for reasons not to confront the problem of climate change. after all, if the alternatives are worse, that gives you an excuse to throw up your hands and go "ah well, nothing we can do"...so naturally, you assume that the alternatives are worse.

[Anonymous No.9829903]

>>9829849
Thrive? Suppose the climate changes, now farmlands have to contend with more or less rainfall and higher or lower temperatures, changing the environments their crops have been used to. How would that be good for good output in any way, much less make humanity thrive?

[Anonymous No.9830122]

>>9822762
I like this graph..

[Anonymous No.9830142]

>>9828832
How does that graph disprove that:

Worldwide glaciers are melting
Sea levels are rising
Coral is dying
Animals are migrating toward the poles
and species are dying?

Please answer.

[Anonymous No.9830165]

>>9822725
>Humans have lived in higher temperatures than the worst of these alarmists' projections, which frankly I can't put much faith in when we can't even predict if it will rain in a week or not.
Holy shit you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.9830190]

>>9822725
>Furthermore, why are we looking at a sample size of 100 years when climate change operates on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years?
Because the climate has changed in the past 100 years and continues to change faster on a moment to moment basis, this current change in climate can be and is measured on an annual scale.

[Anonymous No.9830253]

>>9830142
The graph is simply bad science based on cherrypicking to get a specific result, just ignore the poster.

[Anonymous No.9830284]

>>9829676
>>9829681
Neither of those say that "once the co2 ppm hits 450, it'll become self-sustaining".

>>9829849
>Could someone list several reasons why we should really care about climate change
Take a look at the image I posted here: >>9829604
It's from the IPCC fifth assessment report summary for policymakers.

>us as a species will survive
"The human race probably won't go extinct" is setting the bar pretty damn low.

[Anonymous No.9830456]

>>9830253
I'm aware of what he's doing but why did he reply to my post with that graph? It doesn't even answer my post.

[Anonymous No.9830459]

>>9829348
>Models capture the most significant parts
To my knowledge, there aren't any models that run over long enough time scales to capture any of the significant parts of this. Computers aren't up to the task of producing atmosphere-ocean-land simulations that run over 100,000s of years, even at very low resolution (which by the way has serious limitations when it comes to the radiative properties of clouds).
>And climatologists don't focus on proxies
Later on you seem to come around to the fact that paleoclimate researchers sometimes do focus on proxies (7%), and use the fact that I overestimated the numbers to discredit me, despite the fact that you yourself made a similarly inaccurate statement earlier on.
>If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.
I think this specifically is where things started turning nasty. You basically insulted someone who was attempting to have a polite conversation. You could have instead been polite and posted a paper that refers to a climate model that includes biological process and runs over long enough time scales for glacial interglacial periods but you chose to take the low road.

This whole experience with you has been quite the eye opener. It started when I was quite simply attacked for pointing out some of the limitations of current climate models. I'll admit I was taken off guard, became defensive and sloppy in my arguments, which only seemed to fuel your snarky, abrasive attacks. This kind of style is not fair play. This was a series of ad hominems to keep me off guard and to hide your own seriously flawed knowledge of climate science. I honestly wonder if you ever win at anything without playing dirty. Now's the part where you come back and call me liar.

[Anonymous No.9830477]

>>9829300
>>Seems like temperature fluctuations have lower frequency than the sum of orbital parameters. What's the current theory on why that's the case?
>Feedback loops, primarily the fact that warmer oceans out-gas water vapor and CO2, which causes more warming via the greenhouse effect. This is why interglacial warming is rapid and cooling is slow.

So you're saying that ocean heat content relaxation time, and continental glacial relaxation time has little to do with it here? And that changes in the carbon content of land/ocean as well glacial interglacial changes in land vegetation/albedo have little to do with it? So what, all the carbon that's in the atmosphere during the interglacial simply goes where during the glacial period?

If you can't provide a citation for this statement then it seems very likely that you're just spewing random bullshit that makes you sound smart, at this point.

[Anonymous No.9830486]

>>9829315
>>So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.
>>or rather, they fluctuate at much higher frequency, and therefore wouldn't have time to reach the same amplitude because of the long relaxation time of the oceans.
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.

So I'll ask you again, where exactly does the carbon go during during the glacial period if "The effects of biology only change rarely"?

Please, show us how you're not just a total asshat lawyer/economist with a passion for climate science?

>A very long time ago, massive algae and plankton blooms drew lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then were deposited on the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these deposits of carbon were turned into fossil fuels. At the same time, the climate was slowly cooling due to there being less greenhouse gases. Eventually it reached the nice relatively stable climate that humans evolved in. For many thousands of years, humans flourished. Eventually we discovered the fossil fuels and started releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Guess what happens next.
I'm not gonna bother asking you for a citation for this because literally every fucking high school student knows this. But thanks anyway for the condescending lecture.

[Anonymous No.9831020]

>>9830459
>To my knowledge, there aren't any models that run over long enough time scales to capture any of the significant parts of this.
Parts of what? Different things dominate the climate over different time scales.

>Computers aren't up to the task of producing atmosphere-ocean-land simulations that run over 100,000s of years, even at very low resolution
It's much easier to project the climate over 100,000 years since the Milankovich cycles take over on that scale.

>(which by the way has serious limitations when it comes to the radiative properties of clouds).
What has serious limitations? Your post is just vague concepts bunched together without any real connection between them.

Again, models are currently projecting temperatures accurately, and so far you have neither presented evidence nor reasoning to show that they are missing something significant.

>Later on you seem to come around to the fact that paleoclimate researchers sometimes do focus on proxies (7%)
What are you taking about? All paleoclimate researchers focus on proxies, that is their primary source of data. This is a non sequitur. Most climatologists are not paleoclimatologists.

>despite the fact that you yourself made a similarly inaccurate statement earlier on.
And what statement was that?

>You basically insulted someone who was attempting to have a polite conversation. You could have instead been polite and posted a paper that refers to a climate model that includes biological process and runs over long enough time scales for glacial interglacial periods but you chose to take the low road.
This latest post only reinforces my point. I don't think you've attempted to understand what you're talking about. For example, you could have looked at what gets input into climate models and found out that ecosystem interactions are a big part of what determines the RCPs:

http://climate.calcommons.org/bib/representative-concentration-pathways-overview

[Anonymous No.9831037]

>>9830459
And you could have looked for 100,000 year climate models, of which there are many. Here's the big one that validated the Milankovitch theory:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.500..190A

>This whole experience with you has been quite the eye opener. It started when I was quite simply attacked for pointing out some of the limitations of current climate models.
By attacked you mean I disagreed with your characterizion and understanding of the science. If you can't handle someone contradicting your precious posts with reasoning and evidence, then I suggest you promptly fuck off. Stop whining.

>This was a series of ad hominems to keep me off guard and to hide your own seriously flawed knowledge of climate science.
And what are those serious flaws? Use your words like a big boy.

>I honestly wonder if you ever win at anything without playing dirty.
How have I played dirty? The only thing you've been correct about is that I insulted you. Guess what, no one cares! It doesn't mean you won or I won. My arguments are right there for anyone to counter. Do so instead of whining about non sequiturs. The only one trying to distract from the issues is you.

[Anonymous No.9831102]

>>9829903
People and farmers can all adapt to that. We might need to change the crops we grow or better yet we can genetically modify them so that they can grow in such conditions, or create an isolated area with the conditions they prefer.

[Anonymous No.9831140]

>>9830477
>So you're saying that ocean heat content relaxation time, and continental glacial relaxation time has little to do with it here?
Relaxation times are obviously involved in the physics of the ocean-GHG feedback loop and the hysteresis loop of glaciation-deglaciation. But rescan times by themselves don't explain how orbital cycles cause the glacial-interglacial cycle. That's very simplistic.

>And that changes in the carbon content of land/ocean as well glacial interglacial changes in land vegetation/albedo have little to do with it?
Obviously the carbon content of the oceans has a lot to do with the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. It seems like you are not reading what I wrote and instead substituting a straw man. Albedo is part of the ice sheet feedback loop. As far as I know, vegetation, forest fires, volcanoes, etc. are not useful in explaining the glacial-interglacial cycle.

>So what, all the carbon that's in the atmosphere during the interglacial simply goes where during the glacial period?
Into the oceans.

>If you can't provide a citation for this statement then it seems very likely that you're just spewing random bullshit that makes you sound smart, at this point.
Ironic, considering I am simply responding to your claims, which you never provided a citation for. Unlike you, I cite my claims.

[Anonymous No.9831297]

>>9831140
You said, "The effects of biology only change rarely".

which is total bullshit.

Then you continued with a condesceding highschool lecture.

You then proceeded to insult me for no reason - starting an argument. Your style then devolved into the equivalent of throwing dirt in your opponents eyes and kicking them in the balls.

You don't even have a passion for climate science, you're just a lawyer or some other kind of debate specialist who knows just enough about the issue to sell regressive carbon taxes to the public of debt ridden western governments.

[Anonymous No.9831313]

>>9831020
>This latest post only reinforces my point. I don't think you've attempted to understand what you're talking about. For example, you could have looked at what gets input into climate models and found out that ecosystem interactions are a big part of what determines the RCPs:

Oh, ok so I guess when you said "The effects of biology only change rarely", you were incorrect, and biology is actually a crucial part of the climate system.

I don't expect you to admit your mistake....

[Anonymous No.9831367]

>>9831297
>You said, "The effects of biology only change rarely".
In the context of Milankovitch cycles. You said that without biological processes temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to Milankovitch cycles. This is false, because there was

>Then you continued with a condesceding highschool lecture.
It's an example of a change in biology that causes climate change.

>You then proceeded to insult me for no reason - starting an argument.
If by "for no reason" you mean "because I was spouting nonsense about the climate" then you are correct. If you don't want to start an argument, don't spout nonsense. Pick up a fucking textbook before trying to tell me about the effect of biology on climate.

>You don't even have a passion for climate science, you're just a lawyer or some other kind of debate specialist who knows just enough about the issue to sell regressive carbon taxes to the public of debt ridden western governments.
You don't know what I'm passionate about. We know you certainly aren't passionate about climate science, since you couldn't even bother to learn a single thing about it. And you don't know that I support regressive carbon taxes. The difference is clear between us. I base my arguments on facts and understanding of the science. You base your argument on speculation and assumptions. Next time you will probably whine again about ad hominems right after you posted this giant ad hominem. I think from now on I'll just ignore these idiotic little outbursts, yeah only substantive points will be replied to.

>Oh, ok so I guess when you said "The effects of biology only change rarely", you were incorrect, and biology is actually a crucial part of the climate system.
Biology is a crucial part of the climate system, but it only changes rarely. If you actually read the paper you'd see that all of the variability in climate forcing from flora and fauna since the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic, not natural.

[Anonymous No.9831374]

>>9831297
In the context of Milankovitch cycles. You said that without biological processes temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to Milankovitch cycles. This is false, because there was no contribution from biology.

All you're doing is moving the goalposts and then ignoring all the times I've scored while claiming that I never got the ball through the goal and have spent the entire time insulting you.

[Anonymous No.9831397]

>>9831374
>because there was no contribution from biology [in the context of Milankovitch cycles].
You're full of shit. You like to opine about things you don't know even the most basic principles about for political reasons - and if that weren't bad enough, instead of doing more research and learning more from people who challenge you, you insult them.

Over long time scales, carbon sequestration in the oceans is entirely due to biological processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/869/pdf

>You don't know what I'm passionate about.
You're passionate about finding reasons to introduce regressive taxes.

[Anonymous No.9831413]

>>9831374>>9831397
More research to that effect:
https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf

Climate scientists know that the biological pump is one of the key components of the climate system - they may not understand exactly how it fits in, but its an area of active research.

You need to retract your incorrect statement:
>because there was no contribution from biology [in the context of Milankovitch cycles].

and stop posing as a climate scientist. You are not one, and you never will be.

[Anonymous No.9831427]

>>9831374
Hell, I doubt you're even any kind of scientist, let alone a climate scientist.

[Anonymous No.9831429]

>>9831397
The paper doesn't quantify what effect this will have on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It can't even tell if it will be a positive or negative feedback. It seems to be negligible on the human timescale since biologists haven't included it in the RCPs.

>You're passionate about finding reasons to introduce regressive taxes.
When have I ever promoted regressive taxes? Try not to strawman your opponent, it makes you look like a fool.

>https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
Better. Good job. I admit it's possible biological variations played a role in glaciation.

>and stop posing as a climate scientist. You are not one, and you never will be.
When did I claim to be one? Again, stop straw-manning.

[Anonymous No.9831467]

>>9831102
>People and farmers can all adapt to that.
Yeah, with money, and time, and loss of farm output in the interim, and potential famine in poorer parts of the world because they lack the capability to adapt easily.

[Anonymous No.9831477]

>>9831429
>Better. Good job.
Great, thank you. Now apologize for the condescending and borderline insulting tone you've been using throughout this conversation - specifically where you kicked off the nastiness with this gem:
>If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.

[Anonymous No.9831485]

>>9831429
Seriously, we probably could have skipped all of this bullshit and gotten straight to the point:
>https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
if you'd just been a little more civil. Instead we've both wasted hours on minutiae. I apologize for allowing myself to get drawn in the way I did.

[Anonymous No.9831493]

>>9831429
>>9831485
forgot image

[Anonymous No.9831499]

>Everyone arguing why or why not climate change matters and not realizing like every other environmental cycle it'll even itself out eventually.

If it does get hotter then eventually more people will die. With less people less CO2 is being released and more will be absorbed. If theres more migration there will be less people to impact nature from absorbing excess CO2 in those areas. If more people are dying less people will be buying goods, lowering production and the expulsion of proposed greenhouse gases, any bugs feasting on the bodies will eventually meet the same cycle of life and death. Plants will grow with all the extra CO2 until it drops enough due to the above factors for them to shrink back to sustainable levels.

If it's not anthropogenic we all die anyways by extreme temperatures in both directions. What's the issue?

[Anonymous No.9831685]

How did all that carbon get in the atmosphere? By our burning of carbon fuels.
How did we get the carbon? By digging it from the ground.
How did it get underground? It used to be living organisms.
How did those organisms get so much carbon? They breathed it in from the air-hold on...

[Anonymous No.9831692]

why not just pump co2 emmissions into balloons and then shoot those balloons into space

[Anonymous No.9831702]

>>9831102
>so what if we fuck up the global climate in ways we could have done something to prevent?
>we'll just magically make crops grow in different environments
>or we'll fucking terraform areas for agriculture
if that was something we could do as easily as you think, we'd already be doing it.
the dirty little secret about genetic engineering in particular is that we mostly just fuck around with what's already there rather than designing traits/genes de novo

[Anonymous No.9831703]

>>9822725
It's amazing to me that global-warming zealots are perfectly aware that "experts" (i.e. funding-self-securers) continually adjust the raw temperature data, but see nothing at all sinister about the fact that the continually "adjust" the past temperatures down and the latest ones up. An honest person would certain pause at that and say, "Hey, that's exactly what a person faking their data would do."

[Anonymous No.9831717]

>>9831703
It's amazing to me that global-warming denialists are perfectly aware that actual experts
(i.e. scientists, engineers, and technicians) ocasionally adjust the raw temperature data
to account for calibration drift, placement, and other sources of error.
An honest person would certainly perceive that as being exactly what a person seeking
the most-accurate data would do; but denialists are not honest, and so they see
a projection of their own fraud and fakery in every human endeavour.

[Anonymous No.9831723]

>>9831717
>I ignored the point you made, and the data you provided to prove that point.
>Instead I made an appeal to authority, tried to poison the well, and topped off my fallacies and non-arguments by accusing you with blanket generalizations and ad-hominems.

In other words, you lost to me.

[Anonymous No.9831797]

>>9831723
You guys need to get with the program
Check out this site:
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

Ask yourself how most of the globe could be experiencing warming than normal temperatures at any given time if temperatures weren't increasing.

Is most of the globe going to see below normal temperatures in a week? Absolutely not. If we watch that website day by day you will always see more red than blue.

[Anonymous No.9831802]

>>9831467
Who honestly cares about those places? They're honestly filled with people who aren't capable of living in the modern world and so will likely be the first to die off in the event of a mass extinction anyways.

[Anonymous No.9831803]

>>9831717
most likely true for some of the most powerful denialists. but I dont think we can just lump them all in that batch. I think most denialists have much different reasons. either way its psychological.

[Anonymous No.9831838]

What would current climate be like had anthropogenic change not happened?

[Anonymous No.9831881]

>>9831685

[Anonymous No.9832167]

>>9831477
>Great, thank you. Now apologize for the condescending and borderline insulting tone you've been using throughout this conversation - specifically where you kicked off the nastiness with this gem:
No. You were still wrong about everything else. Apologize to me for misrepresenting the science.

[Anonymous No.9832171]

>>9831485
What do you mean by we? You could have posted evidence immediately after making the claim. Instead you wasted my time with numerous posts without substance.

[Anonymous No.9832174]

>>9831499
>more people will die
>what's the issue?

[Anonymous No.9832221]

>>9831703
It's amazing to me the lengths to which deniers will cherrypick the data in order to lie to people. Your graph shows the net result of adjustments to US land stations is that the trend increased, but most of the surface of the Earth is water, not land. Ocean temperature trends have been adjusted down. The net result is that climatologists have actually reduced the global warming trend with adjustments. An honest person would say "Hey, that's exactly what a person faking their data wouldn't do."

[Anonymous No.9832227]

>>9831838
Pre-industrial climate, slowly cooling over tens of thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.9832280]

>>9832167
>No. You were still wrong about everything else.
Yes but I was right about the first thing, which is what you started insulting me over.

It's ok. I will be fine either way and I forgive you for being a completely irredeemable jackass who posts meaningless drivel, but I think you might feel better in your heart if you can find the courage to do the right thing and say you're sorry.

[Anonymous No.9832457]

>>9832174
>Everyone deserves to live
How righteous of you. Im sure your volunteer work helping children with HIV and giving all your money to charity keeps you poor, but we all know the real money is from what's within.

[Anonymous No.9832462]

>>9832457
Have fun with all the migrants.

[Anonymous No.9832469]

>>9832462
But my borders are already closed to non-whites Anon.

[Anonymous No.9832483]

>>9832469
No they're not.

[Anonymous No.9832508]

climate change deniers are paid shills
sage and ignore

[Anonymous No.9832591]

>>9832280
>Yes but I was right about the first thing, which is what you started insulting me over.
What is "the first thing?" Why are you being vague again? This line of argument started with >>9829277 which is patently false.

>It's ok. I will be fine either way and I forgive you for being a completely irredeemable jackass who posts meaningless drivel
What did I post that's meaningless drivel? Apologize for constantly misrepresenting my argument.

[Anonymous No.9832595]

>>9832457
>he thinks his taxes are not spent on saving people's lives
Oh wait you're probably too young to be paying taxes, my mistake. You'll eventually grow up out of this edgy phase and realize society solves these problems regardless of whether you agree.

[Anonymous No.9833165]

>>9831493

Cats are as useless to the common man as the New World Order, but both are promoted nonstop.

[Anonymous No.9833344]

>>9832591
This line of argument started when I challenged your statement here >>9829315
>The effects of biology only change rarely.
which is meaningless drivel and patently false.
At which point, rather than back up your statement with evidence, you began to insult me.
> If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.
>>9829348

>>9829277
This statement, and the ones I made regarding relaxation time [math]\tau[/math], make sense when considering that temperature fluctuation frequency is lower by a factor of about 5x than the precession component of the Milankovitch cycle (the highest frequency component).

Did you even bother to read
https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
Are you even interested in climate science?

Apologize for your abrasive posting style and for posing as a climate scientist for political reasons.

[Anonymous No.9833385]

>>9832591
All of these posts are from a very opinionated retard
>>9829292
The oceans don't drive anything, their effects are all determined by temperature.
>>9829315
No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
Meaningless drivel/patently false
>A very long time ago, massive algae and plankton blooms drew lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then were deposited on the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these deposits of carbon were turned into fossil fuels. At the same time, the climate was slowly cooling due to there being less greenhouse gases. Eventually it reached the nice relatively stable climate that humans evolved in. For many thousands of years, humans flourished. Eventually we discovered the fossil fuels and started releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Guess what happens next.
Condescending high school lecture
>>9829348
Models capture the most significant parts, which is why they are currently accurately projecting global temps.
Unable to distinguish between glaciation models and atmospher-ocean models
>And climatologists don't focus on proxies, that is only a small part of climatology.
Some climatologists do focus on proxies.

Instead of admitting your mistakes when challenged, or even researching your own claims out of curiosity (like a proper scientist would), you began to load your posts with abrasive hominems to divert attention from your own incompetence.

[Anonymous No.9833386]

>>9832591
All of these posts are from a very opinionated retard
>>9829292
>The oceans don't drive anything, their effects are all determined by temperature.
>>9829315
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
Meaningless drivel/patently false
>A very long time ago, massive algae and plankton blooms drew lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then were deposited on the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these deposits of carbon were turned into fossil fuels. At the same time, the climate was slowly cooling due to there being less greenhouse gases. Eventually it reached the nice relatively stable climate that humans evolved in. For many thousands of years, humans flourished. Eventually we discovered the fossil fuels and started releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Guess what happens next.
Condescending high school lecture
>>9829348
Models capture the most significant parts, which is why they are currently accurately projecting global temps.
Unable to distinguish between glaciation models and atmospher-ocean models
>And climatologists don't focus on proxies, that is only a small part of climatology.
Some climatologists do focus on proxies.

Instead of admitting your mistakes when challenged, or even researching your own claims out of curiosity (like a proper scientist would), you began to load your posts with abrasive hominems to divert attention from your own incompetence.

[Anonymous No.9833390]

>>9832591
All of these posts are from a very opinionated retard
>>9829292
>The oceans don't drive anything, their effects are all determined by temperature.
>>9829315
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
Meaningless drivel/patently false
>A very long time ago, massive algae and plankton blooms drew lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and then were deposited on the ocean floor. Over millions of years, these deposits of carbon were turned into fossil fuels. At the same time, the climate was slowly cooling due to there being less greenhouse gases. Eventually it reached the nice relatively stable climate that humans evolved in. For many thousands of years, humans flourished. Eventually we discovered the fossil fuels and started releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Guess what happens next.
Condescending high school lecture
>>9829348
>Models capture the most significant parts, which is why they are currently accurately projecting global temps.
Unable to distinguish between glaciation models and atmosphere-ocean models (i.e. the ones that project temperatures over the next century.)
>And climatologists don't focus on proxies, that is only a small part of climatology.
Some climatologists do focus on proxies.

Instead of admitting your mistakes when challenged, or even researching your own claims out of curiosity (like a proper scientist would), you began to load your posts with abrasive hominems to divert attention from your own incompetence.

[Anonymous No.9833535]

>>9833344
Weird how you are claiming the argument started in a post that I made in response to you. Why not say the argument started at the post I responded to? Because you want to distract from the fact that I had to educate you on the basics of Milankovitch cycle before you whittled your argument down to a much weaker claim. You went from 'biological factors are the main cause of the glacial cycle' to 'biological factors are possibly involved in explaining how CO2 got so low during interglacials.' You're pretending everything you wrote is suddenly vindicated by getting one thing correct. It didn't. You were mostly wrong. If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.

>This statement, and the ones I made regarding relaxation time τ, make sense when considering that temperature fluctuation frequency is lower by a factor of about 5x than the precession component of the Milankovitch cycle (the highest frequency component).
The model here >>9831037 explains the solution to the frequency problem. Biological factors are not even mentioned, let alone the primary mechanism. As I already said, the relaxation time of ice sheets is not sufficient to explain the frequency. A hysteresis loop between temperature, ice sheet extent and altitude is necessary. You apparently still have not read the paper since you still think you were on the right track.

>Did you even bother to read
>https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
Yes, did you? This says that changes to the carbon pump may explain why CO2 was so low during glacials. It doesn't explain the frequency of the glacials.

>Apologize for your abrasive posting style and for posing as a climate scientist for political reasons.
Again, where did I pose as a climate scientist? Why are you avoiding the question? Apologize for misrepresenting my posts.

[Anonymous No.9833551]

>>9833535
>Weird how you are claiming the argument started in a post that I made in response to you.
It's not weird. Your response had patently false information, was condescending and abrasive, if not flat out insulting. That's how the argument began. It didn't have to be like that. You could have simply asked for a citation, at which point I would have posted this:
https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
and that would have been that. But instead you took the low road. For this you owe me, and everyone else reading, an apology.

>The model here >>9831037 explains the solution to the frequency problem.
i cant read that one because its behind a paywall.

[Anonymous No.9833565]

>>9833535
This is how it went
Me:
>So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.
You:
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
>Condescending high school lecture
Me:
>We'll have to agree to disagree on that, since neither of us appears to want to dig up citations. I'm sure it's still heavily debated in the community. Models do not capture the complex interactions - not even close.
You:
>Models are great nearly perfect at projecting temperatures...... If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.
Me:
>Defensive flabbergasted floundering
You:
>Increasingly condescending, abrasive minutiae.

This is how it should have gone
Me:
>So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.
You:
>Do you have a citation to show that biological factors are significant?
Me:
>https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf
You:
>Interesting, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9833576]

>>9833535
>Again, where did I pose as a climate scientist?
With this post
>>9829348
Instead of saying "I don't know about that" (which you did not), you posed as the expert - posting supposedly definitive facts which in actuality were patently false.

[Anonymous No.9833579]

>>9833390
>Meaningless drivel
>patently false
Ah so it's not meaningless drivel. Thank you for admitting that.

>Condescending high school lecture
Example of how biology effects climate, get over it.

>Unable to distinguish between glaciation models and atmosphere-ocean models (i.e. the ones that project temperatures over the next century.)
This is laughable. You did not distinguish between models in the post that I was responding to! You simply said that models do not capture all complex interactions. As I said, this is irrelevant since they capture the most significant parts. Contrary to what you claimed, we already have 100,000 year models that explain the frequency of glacial cycles.

>Some climatologists do focus on proxies.
So what?

Instead of admitting your original thesis failed when challenged, or even researching your own claims out of curiosity (like a proper scientist would), you began to load your posts with misrepresentations to divert attention from your own incompetence.

[Anonymous No.9833581]

>>9825750
This kind of shit is how people get recruited to the ranks of morons. I honestly don't think we can stop it.

[Anonymous No.9833582]

>>9833535
>Again, where did I pose as a climate scientist?
And with this post
>>9829315
Also patently false - at least the first part was.
No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology.
The 2nd part was a condescending high school lecture. To lecture someone is to assume a position of authority on a subject. You are not an expert on climate science, and you never will be so stop pretending to be. And apologize for misrepresenting yourself.

[Anonymous No.9833588]

>>9833535
>Again, where did I pose as a climate scientist?
And with this post
>>9829315
Also patently false - at least the first part was.
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology.
The 2nd part was a condescending high school lecture. To lecture someone is to assume a position of authority on a subject. You are not an expert on climate science, and you never will be so stop pretending to be. And apologize for misrepresenting yourself.

[Anonymous No.9833602]

>>9833565
This is how it went down:

You:
>Anyway, it seems from that that biological interactions would be the main cause.

Me: nope

You:
>Either biological or some other process is driving that spring. Maybe ocean circulation too.

Me: nope

You: further whittling away

Me: OK it's possible biological processes explain low CO2 during interglacials

You: aha, I was right all along, apologize!

[Anonymous No.9833608]

>>9833576
>Instead of saying "I don't know about that" (which you did not), you posed as the expert - posting supposedly definitive facts which in actuality were patently false.
Why would I say I don't know that models are not capturing the significant interactions? That entire post was correct. And I did not pose as an expert. Apologize.

[Anonymous No.9833612]

>>9833582
So apparently to you posting claims means pretending to be an expert. Why are you pretending to be an expert?

[Anonymous No.9833616]

>>9833582
So apparently to you posting claims means pretending to be an expert. Why are you pretending to be an expert?

>>9833581
>Also patently false - at least the first part was.
Your own source (which we now know you didn't read) says that outgassing occurs without biology. Funny.

[Anonymous No.9833621]

>>9829315
>>So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
Turns out there's something called the biologicaly pump, which you knew nothing about until I educated you on the subject.
This whole conversation only illustrates your willingness opine on things you know nothing about, and post patently false information; then when challenged you load your posts with condesceding, abrasive, insults to hide your lack of knowledge.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-pump
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200033381_Climate_and_atmospheric_history_of_the_past_420000_years_from_the_Vostok_Ice_Core

[Anonymous No.9833632]

>>9833616
crossed out post is this one:>>9833576
and you meant to reply to this:>>9833588
not this>>9833581 (not me)

(sorry, deleted then reposted to edit)

[Anonymous No.9833645]

>>9833602
>You:
>>Anyway, it seems from that that biological interactions would be the main cause.
>Me: nope

If you'd said "nope", and asked for a citation there instead of posting patently false information and using condescension, and abrasive adhominems then we'd be have been done already. But instead you took the low road.

Apologize.

[Anonymous No.9833665]

>>9833602
>OK it's possible biological processes explain low CO2 during interglacials

Also its clear that biological processes are integral to the cycle. Without biological processes, how would co2 get taken out of the atmosphere?

Just admit that you were wrong here:
>>9829315
No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
And therefore you had not basis to insult me here:
>>9829348
>If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.

[Anonymous No.9833668]

>>9833602
>OK it's possible biological processes explain low CO2 during interglacials

Also its clear that biological processes are integral to the cycle. Without biological processes, how would co2 get taken out of the atmosphere?

Just admit that you were wrong here:
>>9829315
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.
And therefore you had not basis to insult me here:
>>9829348
>If you are going to criticize a field of science, you should at least attempt to understand it.

[Anonymous No.9834300]

>>9833668
Jesus Christ, you STILL haven't read your own source. I'm not going to reply to anymore posts until you go and prove to me you have read it by explaining to me correctly how oceans absorb CO2.

[Anonymous No.9834413]

The funniest part is, you can't even predict the temperature or weather accurately for more than 14 days, since it's mathematically impossible (n-body problem).

And there are people out there shitting their beds over some "legit" calculations for the next 50 years lol

[Anonymous No.9834420]

>>9834413
It will be cold in northern Europe and USA 7 months from now, screenshot this.

[Anonymous No.9834613]

>>9834413
>Hurr weather is climate
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

[Anonymous No.9834719]

>There are idiots who actually doubt anthropogenic climate change

???

I thought people with brains had moved on? The actual debate right now is on just how pressing an issue it actually is. Do we have to fix this in the next ten years, regardless of economic or human cost, or can we make gradual changes over several decades? Is there a point of no return, and when would we hit that? How fast should we reverse this, or will the natural economic shift towards more renewable energy turn it around without further intervention?

If you're skeptical of the doomsaying, your position should be that we'll run out of economically viable fuel sources before we can emit enough CO2 for it to be an irreversible issue, not that it's not happening.

[Anonymous No.9834733]

>>9834413
The weather of an area is based upon an unbelievable number of factors, the slightest variations of which can cause huge effects and isn't worth the computing power it would take to simulate all the variables to such a finite degree. It's quite literally the most visible practical demonstration of the butterfly effect there is.

CO2 having an impact on the whole earth is just a matter of realizing that CO2 levels have a direct correlation to temperature by entirely understood processes, and that we've dumped more carbon into the atmosphere than we've taken out over the past two centuries. A pound of CO2 will not completely change the end result, since it sits on a curve, while weather is more a set of infinitely branching paths.

[Anonymous No.9834765]

>>9834613

the sum of all weathers on this planet IS climate you fucking retard

>>9834733

you are just a brainless parrot, i just told you, that you can't predict WEATHER , which is on a far SMALLER scale and contains MUCH LESS factors accurately after 14 days

anybody claiming to be able to predict the whole CLIMATE in a time span more more than 14 days is nothing but a shill

whether or not CO2 has an impact or not, is not even for debate here

[Anonymous No.9834795]

>>9834765
See
>>9834420

[Anonymous No.9834848]

>>9834765
>the sum of all weathers on this planet IS climate you fucking retard
Please tell me how this responds to my post. Weather is not climate.

Your argument is like saying since we can't predict a coin flip we can't predict that half of our coin flips will be heads in the long run. Saying that the amount of heads and tails in the long run is the sum of coin flips doesn't support that.

[Anonymous No.9834865]

>>9834765
Predicting the climate 14 days out is impossible. Predicting it 14 years out has already been done. Scale matters.

[Anonymous No.9834869]

>>9834765

[Anonymous No.9834884]

>>9834765
las vegas can't predict any single game
but bases its whole revenue on predictable averages

[Anonymous No.9834885]

>>9822725
I want to know where these temperatures are being measured
if they're being measured in cities, for example, or near the edge of cities, obviously they're going to go up if the city is growing and there are more cars and factories than 20 years ago
in fact Al Gore used this to his advantage in his original 'inconvenient truth' data

[Anonymous No.9834932]

>>9834885
>I want to know
Did you ever try looking? No? Then you don't really want to know, you're just looking for excuses.

[Anonymous No.9834988]

>>9834884
>>9834848
>>9834865

what you wrote just shows you have 0 idea what probability theory actually is and what math is acutally used when creating these models and weather models in general

and that's exactly why all geologists and climate scientists need to be defunded and replaced with people who know what they are doing and can actually make a change by implementing things that will provably work and save the planet

[Anonymous No.9835000]

>>9834988
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.9835036]

>>9834300
>Jesus Christ, you STILL haven't read your own source.

I read enough of it to know it sure as fuck doesn't prove this ridiculous statement of yours correct:
>>So without biological processes, temperature wouldn't fluctuate as much due to milankovitch cycles.
>No, out-gassing occurs regardless of biology. The effects of biology only change rarely.

Furthermore, it talks extensively about role of phytoplankton in essentially removing co2 out of the atmosphere, where it either becomes part of the food chain, or is sequestered to the deep ocean, a process mainly controlled by nutrient supplies from upwelling. My claim from the very start was that biological processes were crucial for the glacial inter-glacial cycle - a claim for which you accused me of criticizing a field without attempting to understand it - a claim which I have since backed up with numerous sources. I think I've since shown that I have in fact made a much stronger attempt at understanding the field of climate science than you have - both before and after your baseless and unprovoked accusation. Please apologize.

[Anonymous No.9835062]

>>9834988
Cry more >>9834869

[Anonymous No.9835521]

>>9834988
>you can't do better than 50% accuracy when predicting the result of a single coin flip
>how can you POSSIBLY predict the net result of a million coin flips?