I always thought that climate change was inarguable and factual. But then I found this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
What do you guys think of it? Is climate change literally just a meme?
>>7702762
There is something to it but almost always the tests are fudged. So there is no point in caring.
Yeah a youtube video isn't going to change my mind over years in university
Any issue that's been politicized has a lot of bullshit on both sides, that's something you just gotta come to terms with.
>>7702768
I'm just trying to find any arguing points against this video. What the guy in the video is talking about is the relationship between our models of global warming and the actuality. The entire video is just filled with data and graphs just like pic related, that show that our models greatly overestimate what is actually being happening.
He's not arguing that climate change isn't a thing, but he's arguing that the models show a greater effect than what is actually happening. Meaning that it'll take much more CO2 than we've previously estimated to have an effect on the climate.
>>7702777
Literally none of those lines are how you draw a best fit line
>>7702779
Uh, I don't think you read it properly. The colored lines are what we've "predicted" (I'm not sure if he just made this up desu) would happen. And the black line is what actually happened.
>>7702780
Sorry, I'm used to having information presented in a way that makes any kind of sense
>>7702777
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/1/10/1880-2015?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2015
>>7702784
Well. To be fair he describes the graph in the video.
If what he says isn't altered or outright lies. Then I can't really find any arguing points against it.
>>7702786
He accounts for the increase in heat as the natural state of Earth. Saying if we had no effect on CO2 emissions, then it would still have the same (give or take) climate.
>>7702789
>the same (give or take)
This should set off your bullshit alarm
>>7702792
Well, it's not like the Earth has had stable weather before us. So why should it have stable weather now?
>>7702786
Cherrypicking data is easy and you can make any kind of predictions by doing that.
Heres an excellent mathematical/statistical analysis of the uncertainty in the global average surface air temperature index.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969
I recommend reading the paper, it has also a huge list of references/sources.
This is also fun, brings up another amusing aspect of cherrypicking. http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
>>7702762
The first problem with the video is that it presents the mainstream case and the skeptics case as built purely on assumptions and without showing the amount of evidence behind them. This serves to greatly enhance the skeptic's case by ignoring that the empirical evidence greatly favors the mainstream case. When we actually measure feedback and climate sensitivty we find that feedback is positive and the sensitivity is about 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. The skeptics case is also described as a fundamentally inaccurate idea, that clouds are a negative feedback since they reflect sunlight away from Earth. In reality, they both reflect sunlight away from Earth AND trap radiative heat inside the Earth.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
The video then moves on to Hansen's 1988 scenarios. But these scenarios are based on specific guessed amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. These specific guessed amounts are not what actually occurred, so it is no surprise that the scenarios do not appear to match the temperature record. It is silly to say that his model is incorrect when the point is to predict the effect of emissions, not to guess accurately the amount of emissions, which is based on political, economic, non-climatological factors. The model does accurately predict the warming effect of emissions. The video also misleadingly attempts to obfuscate the accuracy of the model by pointing to a specific data point rather than comparing the projected trend to the real trend. It even claims that the low 1990 estimate is higher than the average trend, without proof. It is common among laypeople to confuse the average trend with the change from the first point in the dataset to the last point, but the two are completely different, and it should be understood that these points are arbitrary, variable, and do not reflect the real trend.
>>7702813
Huh. Interesting. I guess anything can sound correct with the right voice behind it.
A few warning bells did go off when he started looking at stuff from 1990 instead of modern papers. Thanks.
>>7702808
>Cherrypicking data is easy and you can make any kind of predictions by doing that.
How exactly is the data cherrypicked? Look at any month, look at any timescale, you will still get the same warming trend.
Anyway I find it funny that you posted a graph showing the UAH temp record without any uncertainty, and labeled as "subsequent reality". Yet when someone does the same in order to show the trend, suddenly they are "cherrypicking" and there is too much uncertainty in the data.
>>7702820
I am not
>>7702777
I just occasionally drop to these threads to post the 1st link i posted. I seriously recommend you to read it, feel free to doublecheck the calculations. Its ridiculous that there are barely any other studies about the purely mathematical/statistical uncertainty of huge multibillion-dollar climate-change industry.
>>7702762
>I always thought that climate change was inarguable and factual. But then I found this video.
>click here to find out
>real or fake
Do you know anon that you are an ad?
>>7702829
You are not what?
>>7702829
Did you actually look for them or are you just assuming that they don't exist?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006548/abstract
Also, is it just a coincidence that all the proxies we have for surface temps agree on the amount of warming? Nope, let's just give up on climatology because one guy thinks there is too much uncertainty in measuring the temperature.
>>7702762
Daily reminder that climate science on our timescales is a meme
>>7702784
It is presented properly, it's just wrong. The lines are clearly labelled but no significance values are calculated.
>>7702886
>Milankovitch Cycles is a meme
FTFY
>>7702886
>>Milankovitch Cycles
So how long before it cools off again?
>>7703317
log after you're ted, also known as "climate change" is irrelevant
>>7703317
Google says it's a 25,000 year cycle.
>>7702762
You need to read about Maurice Strong. It is more accurate to say that it was created by the United Nations. Hence the term U.N. IPCC. Of course, Mr. Strong did run off to China.
theclimatescepticsparty DOT blogspot DOT com SLASH 2014 SLASH 02 SLASH maurice-strong-and-deliberate DOT html
>nb4 evil denier site.
Prove that the references are false.
>>7702762
>is climate change just a meme
>says the guy asking whether to take a meme youtube video seriously
god i hate this trend of calling everything you don't like a meme in some autistic attempt to discredit it.
>>7702762
>Climate Change in 12 minutes
Are you fucking kidding me? It's my scientist dad's CAREER studying climate change, and he says it's a very complicated problem that no one fully understands. However, I should add that he and all of his colleagues are man-influenced global warming believers, and has met VERY few people in the field who aren't.
>>7702762
US manufacturing is already non-competitive. Near everything we make is garbage we couldn't hope to export, automotive industry especially included. Detroit absolutely cannot compete with Japan, and it really is unfortunate as well as pathetic. We do it to ourselves, and people keep buying that overpriced shit.
Trade agreements limiting US penetration into foreign markets? Yeah, no. The inability is intrinsic. No one is going to buy inferior goods, most of these countries have environmental regulations most of our vehicles don't meet, and we don't have the foothold to manipulate and force them to.
Fuck US manufacturing. Most of it is just the military industrial complex and congress allocating a higher budget than the military even asks for simply to complete contracts. It's broken and ridiculous, everywhere you look, we are shit at everything. I don't feel any real kinship with the US, but it still practically enrages me just out of principle. Inefficiency should not be acceptable, and we build our everything around it hoping to brute force our way to victory with sheer manpower and money. Fuck right off. Someone is always profiting and it's the wrong people.
>>7704516
Interesting. Does he happen to say how man is causing the temperature increase? Or do he and his colleagues still not know either, since it's so complicated?
>>7704516
> my scientist dad's CAREER studying climate change, and he says it's a very complicated problem that no one fully understands.
"No one fully understands" = "So none of our failed predictions count against us."
"No one fully understands" = "But believe us anyway, if you don't submit to more government control, staggering carbon taxes and the lifestyle of a neo-peasant - you're evil."
>I should add that he and all of his colleagues are man-influenced global warming believers, and has met VERY few people in the field who aren't.
Government won't hire scientists who are skeptical of AGW. 97% of AGW scientists are funded by government.The few government funded skeptics got tenure before AGW became the party line.
>>7704587
>muh taxes
>muh gubmint control
>muh neo-peasantry
back to /pol/ you fuckin faggot
>>7704587
>IT'S ALL A GIANT CONSPIRACY!
>EVERYONE IS IN ON IT!
No.
Also, if governments are inventing climate change as a tool to force implementation of new laws and taxes, why are they so fucking unwilling to actually roll out those changes? Look at the goddamn meeting in Paris - they clearly don't want to do shit if they think they can get away with it.
