What is /pol/'s opinion on the global warming hoax? I used to actually buy into the myth that humans were somehow irreparably damaging the planet, but I realized that it was a bunch of alarmist couched in pseudoscience being used to push a political agenda of wealth redistribution.
Now, I don't think all of the scientists who buy into the narrative are all "lying." I think that they are accepting a set of false premises without questioning them properly, then building into them.
I think this phenomenon is worsened because the status quo in academic research is to award climate-related grants, which -attracts- people who already accept the false premise. When science becomes politicized, it stops being science.
Also, pic very related. It destroys some of the common propaganda talking points you hear from global warming alarmists.
I'm with you. Earth has been going through these cycles for .. ever.
>>72154999
>I think that they are accepting a set of false premises without questioning them properly, then building into them.
How do you figure? What scientific evidence (and I'm asking for something particular here, not a weak strawman like 'the climate has always been changing'-crap) makes you think that the current, established models are fundamentally flawed?
>>72154999
>Also, pic very related. It destroys some of the common propaganda talking points you hear from global warming alarmists.
And here my question would be. Could you explain to us how these plots destroys 'common propaganda', specifically? What do these images show? And again, I'm asking for something more thorough.
Cheers.
>what makes you think the models are flawed?
Did you read the pic? The models turn out inaccurate predictions. In science, if your predictions are wrong, then your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
>what do these plots show?
The explanations are written right there. Read them.
>>72154999
That's what scientists do at universities. There are no measurements, statistical calculations, comparisons or studies. It's just politics and loans. Fuck you moron
>>72156101
>The models turn out inaccurate predictions.
I'd argue the models turn out quite accurate predictions within the posterior uncertainties. Soil moisture, latent heat, evapotranspiration, ocean-atmosphere carbon fluxes, just to name a few, are quite well represented in the CMIP5 ensemble. Which of these, in your opinion, and how specifically, have deviated from in-situ data?
>>72156209
You can do all kinds of things with measurements, statistical calculations, comparisons and studies that are all completely incorrect from an epistemic standpoint. It's the difference between using data to build an inductive argument and making the data tell the story of the inductive argument you already believe.
And OP is right. If the status quo in an academic institution is "humans are destroying the planet," and the vast majority of scientific grants awarded to this field of study already promote this, then the field is necessarily going to attract people who already believe it.
I mean that is pretty damned logical and you didn't really even address the point being made.
>>72157216
>the status quo in an academic institution is "humans are destroying the planet,"
But that is not the case, and I have not seen any call that tries to attract proposals using this pitch. Be it JPL/NASA, JAXA, ESA or any other funding body - the earth science projects follow the underlying question: "How does regional and global climate change? What effects will it have on the environment and the humans living in it?".
I've yet to come across a call or funding review that demands an alarmist stance, nor have I ever been denied publication of my research for not showing that humans-driven processes and their effect on the climate are the underlying cause of a specific phenomenon (most studied phenomena are not).
>>72156844
>I'd argue the models turn out quite accurate predictions within the posterior uncertainties.
except that they don't. when you deviate that far from your predictions then there is something wrong with your assumptions. from the beginning of the predictive period the models predict radical warming. the reality was that there was no warming.
>oh, oh, it was the oceans! it was soil moisture! it was ocean-atmosphere carbon fluxes! let's add some more epicycles and maybe we can get it right!
this is what happens, over and over, with bad and politicized science. The proponents try to heap layers upon layers of bullshit onto an already steaming pile of dung and hope that it stays together long enough for them to push through their political aims.
>>72154999
More hoax. The NSIDC has been lying about the Arctic Sea Ice. Is there anything these scumbags won't lie about?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/nsidc-caught-cooking-the-books/#more-21752
>>72158037
>except that they don't.
No, I would disagree here. As I wrote above, the model predictions are within their stated uncertainties.
Is there a specific reason why the image in your post does not show any of the reported errors that come with each CMIP5 output? Or the reported errors of the balloon and satellite measurements (I assume they're the NOAA/MSU record, but that's hard to infer without having read the paper your image is taken from)?
>>72158037
Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
And Nuttercelli has been debunked:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
>>72158720
> Is there any reason why you don't tack on gigantic error bars so that no matter what happens, Climate Change is TRUE!
Is there any reason why you guys don't show what would be huge and (god forbid) honest "error bars" for all the changes to the data that come from the "corrections"?
And Yes, those "corrections" have have significant uncertainty. (Except for always raising the rate of warming.)
isn't it a reasonable conclusion then that while we might have an effect on the climate, the effect we are having is much smaller than we think because of this natural cycle also happening?
>>72158720
>No, I would disagree here. As I wrote above, the model predictions are within their stated uncertainties.
being "well within your uncertainty range" is a moot point if your uncertainties are so tremendous that nearly any set of outcomes could fall within them.
epistemically, it's literally like saying: "maybe this epicycle has more of an impact than we thought... let's revise the models and make another failed prediction."
care to post a revised chart that shows how these models could have accurately predicted no increase in temperatures? or decreasing temperatures?
they predicted warming. and there was no warming.
>>72159420
>that picture
what the fuck is this? did a 4 year old fiddle around in ms paint?
>>72159563
The OP graphic actually addresses that. If there is no evidence of an actual impact on the climate, then there is no justification for even saying "the effect we are having is smaller."
>"There are no such things as purple unicorns dancing on the head of that pin."
>"Well, maybe there are just too few of them to see, so they're still there, you just can't tell."
See? It's fucking retarded.
>>72159898
Sigh. Look closer. The blue temperatures are the actual measured values. The red temperatures are the tampered, er, I mean corrected values.
Those very large "corrections" are by no means certain. They should be shown by error bars, yet warmists never do show them.
>>72159677
>moot point if your uncertainties are so tremendous that nearly any set of outcomes could fall within them
But they are not. Tremendous is not a scientific term.
>care to post a revised chart that shows how these models could have accurately predicted no increase in temperatures?
Don't need to - it's been done already (and I can't be bothered downloading the data right now). See, e.g. 10.1029/1998JD200096, or 10.1038/nature11579.
>>72160147
>The blue temperatures are the actual measured values. The red temperatures are the tampered, er, I mean corrected values.
Are you sure it's not the other way round? Where does the data come from?
>>72160661
Yes, they are tremendous. They cover a gigantic range of outcomes. Here for example, is the graph that was to go into UN IPCC AR5. The prediction range is huge, about 0.8 degrees C, which is on par with the change in temps over the entire 20th century (most of which was suffused with anthropogenic CO2).Yes, this graphic was pulled out at the last moment because even with its huge range of outcomes, the predictions failed.
>nb4 wrong baseline date
Debunked, see article on Schmidt >>72159078
ITT: Fossil fuel shills try to feed you a blue pill.
>>72160759
I am quite sure. They cooled the past to increase the rate of warming. These data are publicly available; U.S. Historical Climate Network.
See the links on this webpage:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html
>>72160661
>10.1029/1998JD200096
describes uncertainties in modern measurement methods.
>10.1038/nature11579
specifically states that modern measurements deviate from modeled predictions in a way that requires climate scientists to "address" these deviations. In other words, like I said earlier, these models predicted warming and there was none.
and I would agree that this discrepancy needs to be addressed, but adding another series of epicycles to an already flawed hypothesis is not the way to do it.
there is no evidence that current temperatures are outside of the norm, and all predictions that show further increases in temperatures have already been demonstrated to be wrong.
at best, someone could claim that "further study is needed." but none of the evidence demonstrates that humans are having any impact on the global climate whatsoever, and certainly not to the degree touted by alarmists calling for massive changes in the global political structure to "save the planet."
>>72161479
Tacking on high frequency, instrumental data onto low frequency proxy data is a statistical abomination.
The proxy data have time range error of at least 100 years and much more for the distant past. Put that hockey stick through a 100 year smother and it will completely disappear.
>>72161447
>0.8 degrees C
Do you know what single-shot measurement precision 0.8 degrees C actually is (or to be more precise - the requirement towards the posteriori uncertainty), for something like LST, not even going to start with UTLS atmospheric measurements?
The plot you posted actually shows very nice agreement in terms of warming trend.
>>72162588
Not my graph mate. Blame OP.
>>72162151
>massive changes in the global political structure
Oh please. Carbon tax doesn't even have the potential to cause a tiny fraction of 'global political structure change' when compared to tax havens, weapon-trade embargo's, the war on drugs, NATO intervention and other issues that are more worthy of your attention.
>>72161479
No, at best you're seeing the effect of a much higher resolution data set (because of modern measurement methods) showing higher variation in a shorter period of time.
Notice how the Marcott data set, before very recent years, smooths out the variation shown in other data sets that would put recent temperature changes well within that norm of variation.
>>72154999
> What is /pol/'s opinion on the global warming hoax?
I'm more interested in the meta-problem, which is: What explains all the skepticism?
I believe the answer is because we have been trained all of our lives to disbelieve people who claim to be experts when they make predictions about extraordinarily complex systems.
Some examples:
1. Weather forecasters do a very poor job predicting the weather more than about 3 days into the future. This is because the weather is too complex to understand well.
2. Psychiatrists cannot predict whether a mentally-ill person will respond to medication. This is because the human mind is too complex to understand well.
3. Educators do a very poor job when they attempt to develop new teaching methods. This is because human education is too complex to understand well.
4. Professional stock pickers select stocks that perform more poorly, on average, than the stock market averages. This is because the stock market is too complex to understand well.
5. When artificial-intelligence programs attempt to translate one language to another, the results are usually abysmal. This is because language is too complex to understand well.
6. When economists make predictions about many macro-economic trends, they have been shown, on average, to be no better than random guesses. This is because the economy is too complex to understand well.
We all have a lifetime of experience being continually disappointed in the severe incompetence of all of the above so-called "experts" and their failed predictions.
So, based on this experience, it's very difficult for us to believe that climate -- an extremely complex system -- is somehow immune to the universal pattern that the so-called "experts" are always utterly incompetent.
>>72163064
Now you sound like your trying to use a trick to fix your data.
>>72162832
>Not my graph mate. Blame OP.
>>72163064
>Notice how the Marcott data set, before very recent years, smooths out the variation shown in other data sets that would put recent temperature changes well within that norm of variation.
It should be pretty clear what's happening there.
>>72163475
>1. Weather forecasters do a very poor job predicting the weather more than about 3 days into the future.
Wat? ECMWF data is pristine, dude. Their surface pressure and temperature/humidity forecasts are so close to the truth it hurts. We need to constantly check our calculations against truth proxies, and ECMWF data has become so reliable, we consider (even the NRT data!) to be practically as good as a ground-station measurement.
>>72162682
>The plot you posted actually shows very nice agreement in terms of warming trend.
You have got to be kidding! Those colored areas are 95% confidence intervals! NOT MEAN PREDICTED VALUES.
Here is the same graphic with updated temps. Now keep in mind, those are symmetric confidence intervals, so there's less than a 2.5% chance of those data points falling that far outside. Yes a number of data points fell out. In short, the null hypothesis is rejected. This, of course, is why they pulled this graphic right before publication of UN IPCC AR5.
I'll tell you what, lets do a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation. There are 4 models and 4 data points which fell outside of the confidence intervals of all four models. What is the probability?
0.025^16 = 0.0000000000000000000000000233
>nb4 combinatorical considerations
The probability would still be minuscule.
It isnt a hoax. But politicians do use it to push their agendas further into the people.
Regardless if its a hoax or not, we do need to work to protect the environment. Do you want America to become China? Neither do I.
>As potentially catastrophic as climate change might be, it's still a less urgent issue than White extinction.
Is this an effective treatment of the issue? You acknowledge the facts of the situation, but also denude the progressive establishment's moral monopoly on it.
>>72163677
I know you're shitposting. But it's not a "trick" to point out that one data set isn't agreeing with the others, and that the discrepancy is questionable.
The fact is that no data sets show no temperatures above established norms, and those showing "alarming *rates* of warming" rely on neglecting the variation evident in all other data sets.
>>72154999
sources on graphs?
>>72154999
The Milankovic Cycles cause the major part in the current global warming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
There's nothing we can do about it and they'll probably cause another ice age soon.
>>72164742
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
You can navigate to the other Paleoclimate graphs from there.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
>>72164249
>Those colored areas are 95% confidence intervals!
Are they? I can't seem to find the plot at a quick glance in my docs. They usually tend to be model ensemble ranges.
>>72163960
Oh, just stop being stupid, please. The web is full of articles that explain why whether forecasting is accurate only within a few days. A quick google yields a ton of them, for example:
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/21/we-can-only-forecast-the-weather-a-few-days-into-the-future/
"Any forecasts more than a week out are going to be less accurate than climatological forecasts"
>>72162682
>Do you know what single-shot measurement precision 0.8 degrees C actually is
Strawman argument.
The data posted are not the result of single-shot measurements. They're the result of thousands of measurements. The known variation of global temps is about 1 degree C per century. This modeling is not working in the dark. At least it shouldn't be. So when a group of models has a 0.8 range degree range out (from about 2007 when UN IPCC AR4 was published) of less then 10 years, and still misses, Something is very wrong.
>>72165320
>another ice age soon.
this better happen you damned kraut
I want humanity to go out like in The Road.
cannibalism everywhere!
>>72165728
>Are they? I can't seem to find the plot at a quick glance in my docs.
Yes, they are.
>>72165968
That post talks about temperatures, which isn't that interesting of an atmospheric variable. Get it down to about 3-5 degC, and it's good enough for my work. Temperature profile is more important for applications and NWPs get those usually right.
>>72165513
thank you, should be put on the pic as a source though
>>72165728
>They usually tend to be model ensemble ranges.
That would be even worse. 105 models are so. All missed the end points
probability = 0.5^105 (sign test, if you will... again, combinatorics won't save it.)
>>72166635
Mate, these models ingest prior information with respecive uncertainties - you need to specifically take the posterior uncertainties to assess any validity of how an observation lies in the posterior probability distribution.
I was a fucking retard and didn't believe in climate change, Then Hurricane Sandy came and threw a fucking SUV through my window and flooded lower manhattan
>>72166910
Sigh. The Bayesian hand waving won't save the models.
If you want to play that way, then the uncertainty is such that there is no legitimate claim to Catastrophic/Disruptive/Whatever-name-du-jour Climate Change. You can't have it both ways.
>>72166123
WTF AM I LOOKING AT ?!?!?!?!??? WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
>>72167410
>the uncertainty is such that there is no legitimate claim to Catastrophic/Disruptive/Whatever-name-du-jour Climate Change
I'm pretty sure I never used any of these terms in my publications, nor will I ever need to.
All of these threads end up the same way. When you look at the data objectively, it'a plain as day that there is no evidence for abnormal temperatures, sea levels, or ice melting. Combine this with the fact that models aren't making accurate predictions, and you're left only with the option that the alarmist position is complete bunk.
It doesn't mean climate science is a bad field of study--it's certainly very important and interesting. It just means that alarmists at their core are driven by a political agenda, which becomes painfully obvious when you look at their so-called "solutions" to climate change.
