In my opinion, the beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't requiere faith. Science provides facts.
However, I see little reason to have trust into the ability of climate scientists to accuratly predict the development of global climate. Also, I am afraid that many climate scientists might be corrupted my money, peer pressure and ideologoy.
Should I blindly trust the opinion of experts, even they can't provide any satisfying proof?
CC is officially the new qualia. Really shows a decline in the board
>>7954433
There are literally 1000 threads on climate change, check the archives next time. This thread simply existing proves that our mods are newfags who fail to differentiate between shitposting and an actual thread.
>>7954433
It is scientific to be skeptical in the face of reasonable doubt or when the evidence is not conclusive.
It is illogical to remain skeptical when an idea has been conclusively proven to be true.
Faith is the domain of theology. The only way to truly know something is to educate yourself and examine the evidence.
Bear in mind that when you are examining the topic of climate change, everything that you accused climate change scientists of doing can be just as easily leveled against those scientists who deny climate change.
there is always room for skepticism in science
anyone who tries to shut skeptics up are unscientific
>>7954448
But if we have a new climate change thread every day, then we get to have all the same arguments OVER AGAIN! It's great. Deniers will bring up all the same points that were previously debunked, except they'll be NEW points now.
>>7954433
>if I am sceptical
By rule, no. You aren't obliged to participate in post-scientific consensus analysis.
>>7954478
Climate change is only happening because that's nature trying to kill all the engineers (gays). Burn them to death. :^)
>>7954433
All science is enumerative induction. So there is always room to be skeptical.
if you put waste heat into the atmosphere then youre gonna increase the temperature
>>7954442
>qualia
Looks more like a new age religion than a quale, although new age words may be required to pin it down.
>>7954549
Volcanoes. The sun. Forest fires. We need more heat, not sure where you live but some more melting would be nice. Need less world government, it's gonna go all totalitarian.
>>7954454
>everything that you accused climate change scientists of doing can be just as easily leveled against those scientists who deny climate change.
AGW alarmist climatologists:
>Hey, my field is super important and needs lots of funding to spend on me and my colleagues!
>You have to listen to us to save the world!
>Our models are reliable and we really know what we're doing!
AGW skeptic climatologists:
>My field is of mostly academic interest.
>We have no pressing issues to raise for the general public.
>Our predictive models are immature and we can't tell you what will happen.
It's pretty obvious which way selfish posers or deluded idealists who want to feel important would be most tempted to go.
>>7954549
No you won't. Heat radiates off into space constantly. The sun dumps more energy on the Earth every day than all the power we've generated in all our machines since human civilization started.
To affect the global temperature, you have to fiddle with the radiation balance, through greenhouse effect, haze, clouds, surface albedo, etc. or the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mostly by varying the amount of water vapor, which is largely affected by the temperature in the first place).
>>7954433
I think it's safe to say at this point that there is AGW, but the true extent is unknown, as well as if it's truly detrimental or not. The predictive models that are commonly cited by alarmists are weak at best, and models can easily be produced that prove the opposite. Once we have a better algorithm for predicting climate, how atmospheric composition changes naturally, etc. then we can make claims confidently one way or another about the impact of our CO2 emissions. But this is exceedingly difficult.
The fact that a carbon emissions tax was implemented pretty much immediately after the Inconvenient Truth should scare just about anyone -- it's an issue that became too political.
Freeman Dyson's take on it is agreeable -- he spent some of his career trying to create a predictive model of climate, but it proved too difficult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
Interview starts at 2:55 for anyone curious.
>>7954454
>It is illogical to remain skeptical when an idea has been conclusively proven to be true.
What if I can't for myself see or look over the "proof" that everyone is talking about?
>>7954433
"It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth's atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind's CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40." (Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author, former NASA scientist, www.drroyspencer.com)
According to the data it still took us seven years. You see, it's not so easy to control climate change.
>>7956200
Suspend judgement, evaluate further data.
Knowing spells work - Belief is for free.
/sci/, be honest, do I need to be worried about climate change?
>>7954777
>I think it's safe to say at this point that there is AGW
>Spends rest of post contradicting that
How is the cognitive dissonance treating you? Religion is a horrible thing to shake, if indoctrinated as a child pretty much impossible.
>>7956200
Then you should use your hopefully developed skill to distinguish reliable sources.
There are experts on subjects so you don't have to be, its something humans came up with in their civilizations so as a whole the civilization can advance easier as knowledge surpassed the amount a single human can comprehend on a level which makes him one "understanding" the subjects.
>>7956844
no. your children does
>>7954454
>implying such things as faith or belief 'exist' at all
both faith and belief are explained by how much you >want< something to be true reglardless of reality and evidence.
faith and belief don't exist, those words just serve as an excuse for intellectually disabled way of thinking.
>its the same as pic related
>>7956844
No, the real and imminent threat is the mental climate change and all that it entails.
There was a post in a previous climate thread that may provoke a second thought regarding the 'dominant CO2' claim. It is still in the archive: >>7953547
Does official climatology have a causality problem?
>>7954454
>scientists who deny climate change
They do not exist. In a recent poll only 1% said that 'there has been no climate change over the past 50 years'. No one denied climate change.
>>7957282
>Does official climatology have a causality problem?
Yes.
>>7957282
>There was a post in a previous climate thread that may provoke a second thought regarding the 'dominant CO2' claim. It is still in the archive: >>7953547 →
>Does official climatology have a causality problem?
Yes it does.
>>7957282
>Does official climatology have a causality problem?
Yes it has a problem.
>>7956971
Anthropogenic global warming means that humans have an effect on climate. Given what we know about CO2's ability to absorb IR and re-release it through vibration proves demonstrably that any CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warming through the greenhouse effect -- ie AGW is true. His post questions the extent to which our CO2 emissions affect climate as a whole; not contradicting AGW at all, but rather the stigma that AGW has a significant impact on climate.
How is poor reading comprehension treating you?
>>7957330
Cause must precede effect.
>>7954433
Of course not. You should blindly trust chiefs of heavy industry and their propagandists instead.
>>7957286
I found the source of the graph you posted. It's from an article published in a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal called "Global and Planetary Change". I'm losing my (climate) religion.
>>7954478
Have you considered that there are different posters on /sci/ every day
>>7957336
CO2 rise does precede temperature rise. Temperature rise also precedes CO2 rise. It's a positive feedback loop. You are severely ignorant of AGW theory. Also, your graph is nonsense because you have isolated the noise and not the trend itself.
>>7954433
It's scientific to say "provide evidence". But of course saying that is apostasy and also means you're a genocidal nutcase and so on, which leads to people cutting you out of their lives.
Faith is not scientific.
>>7958726
Yes, of course there is no evidence of AGW.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
>>7954433
when the vast majority of all scientist believe in a theory/concept it is because the theory/concept has been studied and tested numerous times by the most intelligent people the world has to offer.The thought that even a smell portion of these scientists are corrupted by money/peer pressure isn't feasible as they have nothing to gain from lying about this.
>>7958691
What you call 'noise' is not something random but the difference to the mean value to get rid of the trend and only display the phase relation. Pic shows the Super El Niño of 1998. Maybe the current one will be even stronger. Let's wait and see.
I also have the original graph from the (paywalled) "Global and Planetary Change" article mentioned earlier. It shows almost the same phase lag as the output from the wft data base.
Summary: Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
For the time being I will suspend support of the AGW hypothesis.
>>7958691
>Temperature rise also precedes CO2 rise
Show a graph of the phase relation of CO2 and temperature where they correlate and CO2 goes up first.
>>7958789
>ipcc
This is a church. Their religion is AGW. Their priests are climate scientists. Their currency is hydrocarbons. Their tithes are carbon taxes and carbon trade schemes. Parasitic in a word.
>>7959366
So you don't have a counter argument then?
>>7959380
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/critique_of_ipcc_spm.pdf
>>7959385
>heartland
Wow nice church website anon
Really, skepticism is important to science. We accepted a lot of things and would have continued accepting them had we not had one person who said "what if?"
Look at the model of the atom for instance. That's one that has seen many changes, and it wouldn't surprise me if this century, somebody presented a new model that made sense.
I think global warming may be fact, but we should be skeptical about whether or not it is man made. It's easy to be a bleeding heart and ignore the data on both sides and the already shaky conclusions (climate gate anyone?) but we lack a good model of our climate. We don't know if this is natural or if it is our fault. Hell plenty of research has pointed towards the temperature being the fucking same globally depending on how you wanna slice it.
REGARDLESS OF GLOBAL WARMING HOWEVER that is no excuse to not take care of the environment and the air we breathe and it saddens me that people think you can't support nature conservation and minimalizing pollution while thinking global warming isn't man made.
>>7954433
>even they can't provide any satisfying proof?
ten of thousands of studies are satisfying proof
>>7959225
>What you call 'noise' is not something random but the difference to the mean value to get rid of the trend and only display the phase relation.
That is exactly my point. The analysis tells us nothing about the *trend* yet you are claiming it says something about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Isolating the noise in temps and CO2 simply tells us about short term variations. It's essentially missing the forest (the steady climb of CO2) for the trees (tiny blips in that rise). The human contribution to CO2 is a steady increase with little variation (it has cyclical annual variation but this is not shown because you are isolating noise of the annual mean, so the cyclical variation is removed). It's nonsense to use an analysis which ignores the human contribution to CO2 and it's effects and then claim that this analysis proves that human contribution has no effect!
The lag you are seeing when you isolate the noise is simply the natural effect of El Nino spreading changes in CO2 concentration from the equator to the poles, an effect which has been known since the 80s:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985Metic..20..437K
So not only is your analysis of the phenomenon wrong, it's also a well known result in climatology. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>7959441
>>7959225
As usual, the paid shill quotes unSkepticalScience:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html:
Keeling, C. D., and R. Revelle. "Effects of El Nino/Southern Oscillation on the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide." Meteoritics 20 (1985): 437-450.
95% of the time SkS is a strawman argument. The other 5% is just plain wrong. Here it is just plain wrong. Here's the killer quote from the paper cited:
"During 'El Nino' years, when the Southern Oscillation Index is negative, upwelling and biological productivity virtually cease, the surface waters are depleted in nutrients, and the carbon dioxide partial pressure in the sea is about the same as in the atmosphere. CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE FLUX OF C02 FROM TROPICAL WATERS INTO THE AIR."
Yet look at 1998, the year of a very strong El Nino >>7959225
Temperatures go up more than half a year before CO2 goes up. The same is true for the moderate El Nino of 2002. That Theory Is False. As usual, SkS doesn't care about facts. They're paid to help the U.N. steal your hard earned tax money.
>>7959529
>>7959441
>>7959225
The fact that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures is a well known fact and falsifies Climate "Science."
This is why they refuse to answer this question:
>>7959324
>Show a graph of the phase relation of CO2 and temperature where they correlate and CO2 goes up first.
THEY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
The fact that temperatures go up before CO2 is well established in the peer-reviewed literature. It is the death knell of a pseudo-science. They try to blame it all on "muh Milankovich Cycles." Then they claim that the CO2 has an amplifying effect. However, that would create a non-linearity (acceleration) in the temperature rise. That has not been observed. Again, this falsifies the theory that CO2 drives temperatures.
>>7959532
>>7959441
>>7959225
Peer reviewed papers that establish that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures. They cannot provide a single counter-example. The best they can do is "muh if we desperately torture the data, maybe they go up at about the same time."
Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
(Nature, Volume 343, Number 6260, pp. 709-714, February 1990)
- Cynthia Kuo et al.
"Temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months."
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer et al.
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
>>7959533
>>7959441
>>7959225
More peer reviewed papers.
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 5, March 2000)
- Andreas Indermuhle et al.
"The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr."
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Volume 291. Number 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin et al.
"The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years."
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science, Volume 299, Number 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon et al.
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
>>7959536
>>7959441
>>7959225
More peer reviewed papers.
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, Volume 318, Issue 5849, September 2007)
- Lowell Stott et al.
"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
(Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
- Bärbel Hönisch et al.
"The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition"
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, pp. 51–69, January 2013)
- Ole Humlum et al.
"There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature."
>>7959529
See here for the 2002 El Nino
>>7957286
Temps go up about 9 months before CO2, starting at about 2001. The CO2 does go up (contrary to prediction) yet the same phase relation remains. Thus falsifying:
Keeling, C. D., and R. Revelle. "Effects of El Nino/Southern Oscillation on the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide." Meteoritics 20 (1985): 437-450
and the SkS shills.
>>7959529
Where did I quote Skeptical Science retard? I had no idea the page you posted even existed, but thanks for providing a more thorough debunking.
>"During 'El Nino' years, when the Southern Oscillation Index is negative, upwelling and biological productivity virtually cease, the surface waters are depleted in nutrients, and the carbon dioxide partial pressure in the sea is about the same as in the atmosphere. CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE FLUX OF C02 FROM TROPICAL WATERS INTO THE AIR."
A classic example of cherrypicking quotes, the denier specialty. What happens if we read the sentences directly after?
"Nevertheless, atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase during El Nino, at a faster rate than at other times. Changes in the C-13/C-12 ratio suggest that during the 1982-83 El Nino the deficiency in the flux of carbon dioxide in equatorial waters was more than made up by contributions from the land biota, caused by widespread forest fires and plant deaths due to drought."
So either you can't read, or you are selectively quoting sentences in order to support arguments they don't support. Which is it?
>>7959532
>The fact that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures is a well known fact and falsifies Climate "Science."
Yes a fact that climate science recognizes and is part of AGW theory falsifies AGW theory! If you actually bothered to learn what AGW theory and climate science actually are before you decided they were wrong, you would realize that this is not some new discovery being ignored, it's integral to the theory! CO2 increases temperature through the greenhouse effect. Increasing temperature causes the oceans to release carbon dioxide. These are basic facts anyone should be aware of, yet you are ignorant of them.
>Show a graph of the phase relation of CO2 and temperature where they correlate and CO2 goes up first.
>THEY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
See pic...
CC can be disproved with this simple equation.
>>7959653
Can't tell if trolling or if deniers are this dumb.
>>7959660
>C-climate change exists guys, pls join my cult or you are a denier like those anti-Semites that don't believe in the holocaust, you don't want to be like them do you?
>>7959664
I'm going with troll
>>7959667
>pythagoras you fucking troll stop saying the earth is round, 97% of our philosophers agree that it's flat.
>>7959671
>>7954739
kek, really?
the "skeptics" are the ones alleging massive conspiracies and a seeecret UN plot to tax everyone's freedumbs
if you're talking about actual skeptics (like Dr. Judith Curry) as opposed to deniers, who go around looking for problems with models rather than insisting that all the evidence that the earth is warming is falsified, you've got a bit of a point. but typically if someone is referring to mainstream climatology as "alarmists", they're not interested in actual skepticism
>>7956554
>2016
>still thinking that CO2 is the limiting factor for primary productivity in ecosystems
ISHYGDDT
>>7959688
>2016
>Thinking that the source of all life is a pollutant.
>>7957286
>>7957290
>>7957296
what this guy >>7958691 said. just another day of deniers not understanding how the atmosphere works...
>>7957296
>>7959225
would it kill you to label graphs?
right now you're posting figures with no axis labels or other explanation and basically going "this proves my claims, just trust me"
>>7959385
>heartland.org
>infinitetrashworks.bmp
>>7959529
>oh no he just explained something to me
>better accuse him of quoting a website I don't like
you know, there are people here who actually have a rudimentary understanding of climatology and the sort of university credentials that allow them to leaf through primary sources, right? sometimes when someone makes a good argument against your bullshit claims, they're not just cuntpasting it from SkepticalScience; THEY ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
>CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE FLUX OF C02 FROM TROPICAL WATERS INTO THE AIR.
Are you clinically retarded? The guy you're responding to was talking about CO2 transfer from the tropical atmosphere to the polar atmospheres, not from the tropical ocean to the tropical atmosphere. reading comprehension is key...
>>7959691
Too obvious.
>>7954433
>In my opinion, the beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't requiere faith.
hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha
>>7954454
>>It is illogical to remain skeptical when an idea has been conclusively proven to be true.
illogical in what logic ?
>>7959704
The logic of the cult of climate change of course. Like every other cult, they keep pushing up doomsday on the calendar.
Most scientists arnt trolls, like lurkers and shitposters here on 4chan. Meaning, you can trust them.
>>7959709
I believe you are reading to much into it. The said doomsday is your own creation.
>>7959712
Yeah, trust the people lining their wallets from the funds of government bureaucrats. The idea of climate change benefits the government greatly, it gives them power. You're just a useful idiot to them.
>>7959717
>MUH CUNSPIRACY
>>7959721
>The government doesn't lie!
They lie all the time, remember this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWzELjRfWA ?
The wage gap, this is obviously false, a quick analysis of the statistics show that the discrepancy is caused by Job choices and gender roles, not sexist employers. How is this relevant you ask? It just shows that the government will make any lie to gain power if saps like you will believe it.
>>7959726
>The government doesn't lie!
Nice strawman. Man you truly are delusional.
Argue against the science or fuck off retard. Conspiracy logic means you lose the argument automatically.
>>7956844
I"m more worried about ocean acidification. We've already lowered the pH of the ocean from 8.2 to 8.1. It's unclear, but we might start seeing massive ocean die-offs around 8.0 pH. It's pretty serious.
>>7959734
The only one politicizing it is you, tard. There is nothing political about the empirical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is either true or false. The evidence shows it to be true. Prove it's not or fuck off.
>>7959734
What lie? Ocean pH levels? Please.
>>7959734
>surely decreasing the availability of carbonate while increasing the solubility of calcite and aragonite in the oceans won't negatively affect the vast assortment of marine calcareous biota!
>I know this because I'm pretty sure the government is lying to me
ah, the dulcet tones of loud ignorance.
>>7959726
>The wage gap, this is obviously false, a quick analysis of the statistics show that the discrepancy is caused by Job choices and gender roles, not sexist employers.
not actually true. that accounts for part of it (I wanna say something like 25% of it) but women in most fields tend to earn significantly less than male colleagues with similar qualifications, job responsibilities, and seniority.
>>7959741
Yes, ocean acidification, play devils advocate for a bit and look at counter thoughts to your beliefs.
http://junkscience.com/2015/12/exclusive-ocean-acidification-not-a-current-problem-top-noaa-scientist-insists-in-foia-ed-e-mails/
>>7959748
Not one sentence in any of those emails contradicted the idea that we might start seeing die-offs when the pH drops further.
>>7959748
I read most of the emails, and all of the emails bar one do not contradict anything I said. I said that AFAIK the science on the specific effects of ocean acidification are not well appreciated, and there is some disagreement and lack of consensus of the biological impacts.
However, what is not under dispute is that we have dropped the pH of the ocean from 8.2 at the start of the industrial age to 8.1 today, and expectations are it will reach 8.0 by mid century IIRC.
Then, I think it's a reasonable to take a precationary position, weigh possible costs and benefits including projected likelihoods of costs and benefits, and say: Wow, this ocean acidification thing might be really serious. What can we do to mitigate risks?
>>7959745
When you compare single women to men in the exact same job the amount equals 94 cents of every dollar. The 6 cents is said to be that men negotiated for higher wages more and tend to work more than the women. Again it's personal choices, not the "sexist" employers but that doesn't follow the government agenda so they'll twist statistics and facts just like with climate change.
>>7959761
>The 6 cents is said to be that men negotiated for higher wages more and tend to work more than the women.
Said by whom? By actual studies? Or pulled directly out of someone's ass?
>>7959763
A study by Carnegie Mellon, "while negotiating for pay, 83% of men instead of only 58% of women negotiated for a higher wage."
>>7959745
>women in most fields tend to earn significantly less than male colleagues with similar qualifications, job responsibilities, and seniority.
feminist english teacher assigned a 10 page fucking research paper on the wage gap
i of course decided to suck her woman penis and talk about how real it was and how bad it was etc etc
it turns out when you actually read legitimate peer-reviewed papers published by actual economists, psychologists, etc. you learn that the wage gap is an artifact of life choices. Women are more likely to switch jobs, more likely to quit and travel around for a few years, more likely to quit their job to stay home with children, etc. all of which will drastically reduce your earning potential.
(I think I got like a 98 or 99 on the paper, completely debunking the wage gap to a really strict grading feminist teacher)
>>7959771
And does that study purport that it explains the remaining wage gap? Let me take a guess: no.
>>7954454
>It is illogical to remain skeptical when an idea has been conclusively proven to be true.
False
>>7954454
>Faith is the domain of theology. The only way to truly know something is to educate yourself and examine the evidence.
False
>>7954454
>Bear in mind that when you are examining the topic of climate change, everything that you accused climate change scientists of doing can be just as easily leveled against those scientists who deny climate change.
If they've done the same crap, sure.
>>7959761
>When you compare single women to men in the exact same job the amount equals 94 cents of every dollar.
That's what the government says. I thought the government lied about the gender pay gap?
>>7959787
>The government says 76% which is disingenuous.
"In the United States, the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78% of that of the average male.[6] However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5-6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal leave."
Oh the irony.
>>7959774
If someone offers a reasonable explanation for something, and you have nothing to discredit said explanation, you can fairly remain skeptical of it but you can't argue that it's wrong.
>>7959792
Classic argument from ignorance. "X seems plausible. I don't know how else it could be. Therefore X."
Rationality doesn't work that way.
>>7959791
The government isn't a hivemind , there are people in there that don't believe in climate change too, (mostly conservatives). But when you have POTUS Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton still spreading the 76% lie when the number has been debunked so many times then there is some cause for questioning.
>>7959798
Then you can't use the argument "the government has lied, therefore this research from a scientist funded by the government is a lie". You have to actually argue using facts.
>>7959798
The government can't make the US Department of Labor lie about the gender gap, and you want me to believe it made 97% of climatologists lie about climate change? Fuck off retard.
>>7959799
You see, there are democrats and republicans. The democrats are the ones that want power so they're the ones spreading the climate change lies and wage gap lies. That's why it's a hot topic for the democrat debates and not the republican debates. Not to say I support the republican party, I think they're a bunch of cucks.
>>7959717
>The idea of climate change benefits the government greatly, it gives them power.
More like denying benefits your political bias.
>>7959810
>The idea of climate change benefits the government greatly, it gives them power.
LOL this is great logic.
"If X would lead to something I don't like, then X must be false"
>>7959812
Might as well say a motive is irrelevant in a murder trial.
To first explain why climate change is a lie you have to explain why to make up the lie in the first place. After all, a lie just for the sake of being a lie doesn't make sense.
So you have to explore the motives of the lie makers, the scientists, the left-leaning bureaucrats and find out why they are pushing the lie.
>>7959819
But your supposed motivations make no sense. At all. You think the Dremocratic party is bowing to a conspiracy of scientists to get more grant money? For what purpose? The scientists are fucking poor, relatively speaking. They don't have millions to give via lobbying.
>>7954433
Nah, it's your job to be skeptical if you are a scientist. On the other hand it is unreasonable to be more skeptical than usual just because you personally don't like the implications of a theoroy.
>>7959819
>you have to explain why to make up the lie in the first place.
No you don't, not at all. Are you mentally retarded?
>>7959819
>Might as well say a motive is irrelevant in a murder trial.
A motive doesn't prove that someone is a murderer.
>>7959807
>republicans don't want power
you're really buying into this cuck narrative, huh?
>>7959819
>To first explain why climate change is a lie you have to explain why to make up the lie in the first place. After all, a lie just for the sake of being a lie doesn't make sense.
>So you have to explore the motives of the lie makers, the scientists, the left-leaning bureaucrats and find out why they are pushing the lie.
if only actual evidence that they were lying entered into your investigation at some point...
>>7959819
You have no evidence the murder occurred, just the wish that it did occur, so motive is indeed irrelevant. I could say that you are a shill for oil companies and that you're lying about climate scientists. Would you accept that argument?
>>7959807
So the US Department of Labor is run by Republicans? I kind of doubt it. Anyway, this way of thinking is retarded. You should be ashamed of yourself for making your fellow deniers look bad.
>>7959823
There is a benefit, carbon taxing, government seizure of land, control over the private sector through environmental regulations and also it creates an imaginary problem that the people think needs to be solved or we're all going to drown from the melting icecaps. So you get people like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton that are going to be a superhero and tackle the threat. So you gotta vote for them because with someone like Ted Cruz or Trump you will all die. Now that's just the government motive, the scientist one is a bit simpler, they get to continue doing research on something that will never get proven so they have the most stable scientific job and I'm sure extra cash gets thrown their way.
>Personally, I liked working for the university! They gave us money and facilities. We didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector... they expect results! Dr Ray Stantz, Ghostbusters
>>7959843
Ah yes, the old Ghostbusters defence. Solid.
>>7959843
>carbon taxing
How is that a benefit to Democrats?
>government seizure of land
Come again? Examples please.
>>7959843
>control over the private sector through environmental regulations
I don't see how taxing CO2 produces a massive explosion of government power in the way you describe.
I don't understand your points. Please describe further.
>>7959843
And what if AGW is true?
>>7959843
So you are basically admitting that the only reason you argue against AGW is to avoid taxes and regulations. Hypocrite.
>>7959848
>>control over the private sector through environmental regulations
>I don't see how taxing CO2 produces a massive explosion of government power in the way you describe.
Further, again I don't see how this is something desirable to Democrats that would cause them to lie. Why should Democrats want this?
It's like you're imaging a fantasy were Democrats are cliche evil villains out of comic books where they're just trying to tax more and take more power for the lols.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForTheEvulz
Real people don't work that way. Presumably there needs to be a money inventive. I totally don't see it. Democrats could just raise taxes through other ways. Democrats reps are not getting massive lobbying benefits for their positions - Republicans are.
Your claimed motivations make no sense.
>>7959855
Don't even engage with the conspiracy. Once you start arguing against it you are legitimizing it as a valid argument.
>>7959859
I do not believe that non-engagement is an effective strategy.
What you say has some merit for doing formal policy debates. For example, if a big-name like Dawkins agrees to debate a creationist, then what you say applies. However, this is tripfag-on-anon combat on fucking 4chan.
>>7959848
>>carbon taxing
>How is that a benefit to Democrats?
More revenue for the welfare state, democrats love raising taxes and this is a tax people might be happy to pay although Australians begged to differ.
>>government seizure of land
>Come again? Examples please.
This ties in with the expansion of the EPA, they're using heaps of different environmental "concerns" to take land such as property having a pond being described a wetland.
>>control over the private sector through environmental regulations
>I don't see how taxing CO2 produces a massive explosion of government power in the way you describe.
More revenue, the countries that have the most government power are the socialist and communist countries which have the most regulations on private businesses and the highest tax rates.
>>7959853
And what if God is real? Well if he is then you'll burn in a lake of sulphur for all eternity for being a non-believer. Does that make you want to believe in God?
Being a rational person it shouldn't but somehow AGW is different and you must believe it and vote for these liberal politicians and happily give them money and power because what if it is real!?
>>7959865
>More revenue for the welfare state, democrats love raising taxes and this is a tax people might be happy to pay although Australians begged to differ.
Why lie though? Why not just create a tax to support their welfare programs? This makes no sense.
>This ties in with the expansion of the EPA, they're using heaps of different environmental "concerns" to take land such as property having a pond being described a wetland.
Non-sequitir. Your purported connection is bullshit. With or without global warming, there would still be reasons to protected endangered species, wetlands, etc.
By the way, do you know who created the EPA, the endangered species act, and the clean water act? Nixon, a Republican. Do you also know that Nixon publicly called for universal government health care? Today, people would call Nixon a communist, but he was a Republican president. That's how fucked up today's political discourse is.
>>7959871
Which god? There's a lot of god hypotheses. It's rather hard to do risk mitigation for all of them. Further, many of them will condemn you for worshiping another god, which means that general risk mitigation is impossible for that class of gods.
Unless you presuppose that the Christian god is more likely than the rest, which is just stupid.
That's just one flaw of many of Pascal's Wager. You should look it up. It's fun to read on the many flaws of Pascal's Wager. I suggest Matt Dillahunty's video series on the many flaws of Pascal's Wager.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is only plausible when your post hoc isn't actually pre hoc.
Of course it's stupid to believe that you can live in a closed system but not influence it in some way, but the scale is staggeringly huge and there are so many variables that are not accounted for in experiments. The surface of the planet is littered with materials and phenomena and bacteria that will happily gobble up trillions of tons of CO2, yet that same planet will at random times liberate billions of tons of methane from methane clathrate in the middle of an arctic desert, causing a much worse greenhouse effect than human CO2 emission ever could.
The real life-and-death issue for humans is finding a way to stop the enormous and seemingly unstoppable natural climate change of the planet -- otherwise we're fucking dead. If man's influence accelerates the onset of unlivable conditions by, say, a hundred years, we'll still be just as dead.
>>7959401
Where can one find these tens of thousands of studies?
>>7959855
>Democrats reps are not getting massive lobbying benefits for their positions - Republicans are.
Good joke mate.
>>7959859
>Don't even engage with other viewpoints.
Sounds a bit faithy and unscientific to me. Don't things like Agenda 21 sound like power grabs justified only by the anthropogenic climate change theory?
>>7959879
Who's lobbying Democrats to support the so-called lie of the threat of man-made climate change? What motivation do the donors have?
>>7959876
>Today, people would call Nixon a communist, but he was a Republican president. That's how fucked up today's political discourse is.
You sound like the sort of person who wants gender quotas and all sorts of other social engineering.
>>7959880
The renewable energy and electronic transport industries would be the obvious ones, as they are good targets for subsidization.
This should not be taken as an anti-renewable energy and anti-electronic transport stance from me.
>>7959880
Also, nuclear energy which is already subsidized like mad.
>>7959871
AGW has already been proven scientifically. The burden is on you to counter that evidence. You can stop with the conspiracy-addled fantasies and start making a scientific argument any time you want. Until then, fuck off.
>>7959876
I know about pascals wager and it affects K-selected individuals more than R-selected which also why global warming is pushed more in the west than everywhere else. The point I was making with God related to pascals wager as in the consequences of not believe it is more severe than believing it. So since you're well versed in this why are you so insistent on the existence of AGW
>>7959884
Don't worry. I'll take a piss on so-called renewables right now. They're a fucking joke, and most of the grants should be revoked right fucking now, and diverted into nuclear, like the IFR and various MSRs, such as ThorCon.
>>7959886
Nowhere near compared to fossil fuel industry.
>>7959889
>consequences of not believe it is more severe than believing it
But that's wrong. That's one of the flaws of Pascal's wager. There are just as many god hypotheses where the god will reward you for non-belief.
>>7959893
There're so many religions that end in you in a pit of sulfur for all eternity for not believing. At what percentage is it not worth the risk?
>>7959898
There's an equal number of god hypotheses where you end in a sulfur pit for believing without evidence.
Only by presupposing that Christianity is more likely than a religion I invented right now can you get to your fallacious conclusions. Again, this is an inherent flaw to Pascal's wager, one which you seemingly don't yet understand. Christianity is no more likely to be true than a religion I invent right now which punishes you with hellfire for believing in Jesus Christ.
>>7959887
How the hell does one even prove AGW without saying "Yep, there, see: there's a correlation. No, look, there's a correlation. Right there, look at it. What more proof do you need?" or "A container of CO2 left in the sun will be hotter than a container of air left in the sun, therefore AGW is proven".
>>7959893
So you admit that at least a reallocation of subsidies (and of course contracts) would be a motive for lobbying, then?
>>7959903
>So you admit that at least a reallocation of subsidies (and of course contracts) would be a motive for lobbying, then?
Assuredly.
Of course, this still requires a massive conspiracy amongst scientists to make shit up. It's like saying the moon landing was a hoax. Too many independent scientists need to be involved. It's just like the previous controversies created by big companies, like tobacco and leaded-gasoline - the vast preponderance of the scientific community on one side, and a few shills on the other. The conspiracy theory in academia is just not plausible.
Sorry for missing the tripfag name on some posts. Also posting to a thread in /b/ atm.
>>7959902
If any religion was true it would be the one with the most followers as a God would want the most worshipers. Which is Christianity at 2.1 billion and Islam and 1.3 billion. Both that say non-believers will burn for all eternity.
Climate Change is the liberal version of the Mayan apocalypse.
The short version is that we are at historical lows for carbon in the atmosphere on Earth. This is actually an extreme Ice Age compared to what Earth's normal climate is like. The natural sequestration of Carbon has proceeded since life began and has constantly drained carbon from the atmosphere.
What we are doing is putting an insignificant amount of carbon BACK into the atmosphere that was naturally sequestered. So reality is that we are not really causing any long-term harm and at worst take the Earth out of it's worst ice age.
It is not an existential threat like nuclear war, Harmful AI, bio/chem weapons, meteor, or supervolcano are.
>>7959907
>If any religion was true it would be the one with the most followers as a God would want the most worshipers.
How do you know that the god wants followers? What if the god decided to punish people that believed in him and spread the truth of him? Seems just as likely.
>>7959910
>we are not really causing any long-term harm
to what?
>>7959910
>What we are doing is putting an insignificant amount of carbon BACK into the atmosphere that was naturally sequestered.
Except isotopic disagrees with you. Via isotopic analysis, we can be sure that the increase in CO2 levels over the last 200~ years is almost entirely human-caused.
>>7959905
>Of course, this still requires a massive conspiracy amongst scientists to make shit up.
Well no, just a fear of ostracism for not releasing the desired results, a bit like how there has been a chilling effect on studying the differences between races and other politically charged issues. So experiments are carried out in oversimplified ways that avoid necessary complexities and thereby produce straightforward data that so conveniently show a clear correlation (and thus link!) for this or that.
Just consider: how does one simulate large-scale geological phenomena such as volcanoes and oil sands and methane hydrate deposits in a small-scale closed-system experiment? The man-made side is difficult too. How do you simulate emissions and how do you get an accurate figure for existing emissions in the real world? How do you simulate the environmental effects of billions of buildings made of concrete? How about asphalt? Even the printing industry must have some effect on atmospheric CO2 since paper readily locks CO2 away. How does one account for all sinks and sources in a closed experiment?
>>7959910
Not really an "extreme" ice ace, though, is it.
>What we are doing is putting an insignificant amount of carbon BACK into the atmosphere that was naturally sequestered.
That's my guess too. An element of faith is of course involved here too.
>>7959915
>almost entirely human-caused
Sounds absurd. Link.
>>7959915
You don't know anything. Are you a child?
Humans take sequestered carbon from dead life and restore it back to the atmosphere.
We aren't magically creating new Carbon.
>>7959930
I'm sorry. This silly cliche is not how science works. Scientists get rich and famous by proving their peers wrong, not by sucking up to the party line.
And you're arguing against a strawman. I'm not endorsing any particular climate model. Neither are most scientists.
What I am endorsing is this:
- CO2 levels have drastically risen over the last 200 years.
- This increase is almost entirely the result of human activities, and specifically fossil fuels.
- CO2 is a global warming gas.
- Temperatures have been going up readily for as long as we've been measuring, and this is within the margin of error of climate models.
- This CO2 is also being dissolved in the ocean, where it's lowered the pH of the ocean over the last 200 years from 8.2 to 8.1. It's projected to reach 8.0 at mid-century, which requires nothing more than extrapolating current trends of fossil fuel burning.
You can quibble with the specifics of the various models. What is not under reasonable debate in the academic community is that global temperatures are increasing, and ocean acidity is increasing, by human fossil fuel use, and this /might/ pose an immediate and serious risk for the biosphere and human activity.
Are we sure it's an immediate risk? No. Is it reasonable to take precautions when one of the plausible scenarios is like 90% ocean extinctions by 2100? Hell yes.
>>7959915
Well yes but that carbon came from nonhumans, aquatic life and trees eons ago. Humans just released it back from the ground.
We are at a carbon low age of the earth. An interesting theory about why there are no longer giant dinosaurs roaming around is that there isn't enough carbon to make large grasslands grow to feed all the giant herbivores so everything shrunk down with the plants.
>>7959903
>How the hell does one even prove AGW without saying "Yep, there, see: there's a correlation. No, look, there's a correlation. Right there, look at it. What more proof do you need?" or "A container of CO2 left in the sun will be hotter than a container of air left in the sun, therefore AGW is proven".
Yes exactly. You understand all climatology perfectly. Here's your PhD.
Still waiting for that scientific argument. Or you could just admit you have no legitimate reason to argue against AGW. Now fuck off.
>>7959913
3500ppm in the Early Eocene is still a far ways off.
>>7959938
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
>>7959940
Seriously. You're the one who doesn't know anything. We've been digging up oil, coal, nat gas, and other fossil fuels, which used to be in the ground, and burned them, on nearly unprecented scales, releasing the CO2 into the air and water. According to the geological record, there hasn't been a rate of CO2 increase in the air that matches today since the Permian extinction. The event known as "The Great Dying". The biggest mass extinction in Earth's history. It is thought to be caused by large portions of Siberia becoming volcanic, and burning the underlying coal deposits. Similar to what we're doing now.
>>7959943
>An interesting theory about why there are no longer giant dinosaurs roaming around is that there isn't enough carbon to make large grasslands grow to feed all the giant herbivores so everything shrunk down with the plants.
Grass didn't exist during the time of the Dinosaurs you imbecile. No dinosaur ate grass.
>>7959950
My point was life on earth existed at far higher concentrations of carbon. We are not in existential threat from climate change.
Not to mention sequestration programs could completely balance any carbon excess we currently create.
>>7959952
>oil
>coal
>nat gas
>fossil fuels
These are all just dead life which took carbon from the atmosphere/top soil and sequestered it.
>>7959956
So do you actually think that scientists argue that all life will be wiped out by climate change?
>>7959953
I meant as in bushlands and forests. You know greenery, calm down point dexter.
>>7959960
So the theory is that the atmosphere ran out of carbon? You're an idiot.
>>7959957
Agreed.
>>7959958
I think it is a convenient doomsday myth for liberals and people who are anti technology
That can and is being used to harm human life.
>>7959964
>I think it is a convenient doomsday myth for liberals and people who are anti technology
Answer the question instead of dodging it.
>>7959965
I'm not dodging anything.
Climate Change is being used as a doomsday scenario.
>>7959962
Well, the carbon went somewhere, maybe it's all the oil and coal under our feet. It's not like the atmosphere keeps piling up with carbon until we die or else those active volcanoes spewing clouds of carbon would have killed used thousands of years ago.
>>7959956
>My point was life on earth existed at far higher concentrations of carbon. We are not in existential threat from climate change.
Life on Earth also existed at far lower temperatures. The Earth was nearly covered by glacial ice several times during the Proterozoic, and yet life persisted.
The point is, that which life can survive is not by any means that which human civilization as it currently stands can survive.
>>7959968
You are making a strawman argument.
>>7959969
>killed us* thousands of years ago.
Carbon is always used up by life, and life is always looking for more carbon.
>>7959971
Which is precisely why I'm more concerned about ocean acidification.
>>7959971
Typical myth scenario.
A warming earth provides economic advantages. Not to mention that human civilization as it currently stands can't survive for a host of other reasons.
In fact no one posting in this thread will survive. We will all die.
Part of nature and human civilization is evolution and change.
So, for the next 40 years we continue to mainly use fossil fuels to power human society. That is being generous considering how fast renewables are improving.
Then we do a large scale sequestration program for a few decades and it's solved.
Absolutely not an existential or worrying threat. It's rather benign.
>>7959969
that is an extremely ignorant thought.
fossil fuels represent a small portion of the total carbon present in the Earth's crust and mantle.
there are carbon sinks (subduction of carbon-rich sediments, chemical weathering of rocks at the surface) and there are carbon sources (volcanic emissions, erosion of carbon-rich sediments). it's not as if the system is mostly static until something moves it one way or the other; it exists in dynamic near-equilibrium, with carbon constantly being cycled.
>>7959980
>A warming earth provides economic advantages.
lol
>>7959982
Overall it increases available energy and decreases needed energy. It's why we have things like seasonally adjusted GDP.
>>7959981
Great, it's small so you don't have to worry about it.
>>7959980
>A warming earth provides economic advantages.
I never knew that unseasonable drought, massive disruptions to climate, increases in severe weather, reduced marine productivity, and general mayhem were worth a slight lengthening of the growing season in temperate regions.
>Then we do a large scale sequestration program for a few decades and it's solved.
Carbon sequestration is definitely a meme.
>>7959987
>Overall it increases available energy and decreases needed energy.
Is this sentence supposed to mean something?
>>7959987
>Overall it increases available energy and decreases needed energy.
So I suppose setting you on fire would be good for your metabolism? What a misuse of elementary thermodynamics.
>>7959988
>it's small so you don't have to worry about it
If you believe that, I have a few Australian spiders I'd like to put on your face. Fear not; they're small, so you don't have to worry about them.
>>7959997
>Winter is a drag on GDP and productivity.
Some crops actually prefer cold weather. And this might surprise you, but there are countries where winter isn't really a big deal, but summer is.
Besides, who doesn't want more coastal areas?
>>7959997
>Do you believe the california drought is caused by climate change?
No. Climate change may CONTRIBUTE to it, but I'm not dumb enough to fall for the bait.
>It's basic physics and economics. Winter is a drag on GDP and productivity.
>hay guise, let's warm the Earth up
>no moar winter EVAR, right?
>wait, what do you mean?
>if we warm the Earth, it just means that winter won't happen any more, DUH
>yes I know what I'm talking about
(it ain't that simple fgt)
>>7960000
Are you seriously arguing that a society is more productive in winter?
>>7959997
>invokes basic physics and economics
>ignores basic physics and economics
>>7960000
Most of North America, Europe, Russia, Japan, and most of China would be unaffected or improved.
That's pretty much all of the productive world.
>>7960009
>thinks climate change is going to cause gigantic tornadoes that rip apart his city.
>>7960010
Enjoy your refugees then. Oh and your summer diseases which are now around all year.
>>7960015
not to mention further spread of invasive organisms currently kept in check by the cold.
red fire ants in Texas? welcome to the Midwest. Africanized honeybee fucking up California and the Southeast? now they're nationwide.
but yeah, that's sure good for the economy.
I love this guy's arguments. it's basically "climate change will be a GOOD thing because, well, I thought about it a bit and it sounds kinda nice".
ric pelated
Reality about climate change.
The meetings should be about long-term atmosphere and ocean compositions. They should globally decide on atmospheric and ocean criteria.
The bigger challenge will be agreeing what carbon concentration we should set the atmosphere to, rather than worrying about something silly like climate change.
Because in the not too distant future setting the carbon concentration will be like setting a thermostat for your house. Hence the problem will be different nations wanting different global climates.
Actual fear of climate change is just dumb anti-technology talk from low IQ animals who want to go back to the stone age.
>>7960022
Those sound like bad enough threats we should stop human momentum entirely and watch as 6.5 billion people starve to death while we figure out how to make completely green solar panels.
>>7960015
>Enjoy your refugees then
Implying the great wall of Trump won't be built by then.
>summer diseases
A third world problem, easily handled by civilised societies.
>>7960023
>Actual fear of climate change is just dumb anti-technology talk from low IQ animals who want to go back to the stone age.
You're going to go back there whether you like it or not.
>>7960028
The wall isn't going to stop locusts my friend
>A third world problem, easily handled by civilised societies.
Yeah, the first world has never had problems with agricultural pests and disease lol
>>7960027
so the only alternative to fucking up the biosphere is to completely dismantle our society?
wow, and YOU call US alarmists.
>WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
>OR WE'LL ALL FUCKING DIE
>>7960035
It's a non issue
I'm tired of even thinking about it. Might as well worry that humans walking around kick up dust that will eventually fill the atmosphere and we will all choke to death on it.
>>7960023
>Actual fear of climate change is just dumb anti-technology talk from low IQ animals who want to go back to the stone age.
Right. Which is why those silly luddites spend their time talking about photovoltics and grid energy storage and raising heating efficiency, rather than the real progress of choking us all on more coal soot.
Fuck off.
>>7960035
>wow, and YOU call US alarmists.
That is the hilarious thing about dentists.
>>7960037
>It's a non issue
Only according to people who don't want to accept it.
>I'm tired of even thinking about it.
Exactly.
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement."
Following Popper's advice I was asking my meteorologist neighbor for the most 'heretic' publication related to the evolution of the ECS estimate (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, response to doubling of the CO2 concentration) and she pointed me to this promising paper:
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth's Atmosphere
The fun begins.
>>7960801
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf
>>7960801
Even skeptics like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer know Miskolczi's papers are dogshit. But you'll post anything as long as the conclusion is the one you want, won't you?
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
>>7960640
>spend their time talking about photovoltics and grid energy storage and raising heating efficiency
I have no problem with addressing real problems, overpopulation and fossil fuel depletion, new applications of technology and their energy equations. What I can't tolerate is wrapping all real world problems up in a climate doom religion that accomplishes nothing except enriching new age climate priests, enabling their propaganda machines and frightening children whilst ignoring everything else, accomplishing nothing. Fossil fuel use will decline naturally through the 21st century, why encourage these epic fraudsters?
>dentists
kek
>>7961170
The only religion here is yours. Every single argument you have come up with has been debunked. The only reason you believe AGW is false is because you want it to be false. That is a religion.
>>7961170
I agree with this general point.
I accept that humans taking sequestered carbon sources and burning them for fuel increases carbon ppm in the atmosphere and ocean.
I deny that it is an existential threat to humanity and that stopping industrialization will somehow be better. It's mostly a non issue. We have processes such as carbon sequestration that can eventually let us determine an arbitrary carbon ppm in the atmosphere we want as humanity. There is no real long term threat from climate change and actual dangerous things are far more important.
Natural occurrences such as the Azolla event have had far more impact on climate than humans exploiting stored carbon. Also the general well being and quality of life for humans and the number of humans currently alive is at the highest ever.
We should still push for solar and fusion technologies but really, climate change is a non issue.
>>7961328
>I deny that it is an existential threat to humanity and that stopping industrialization will somehow be better.
Nice strawman, alarmist.
>We have processes such as carbon sequestration that can eventually let us determine an arbitrary carbon ppm in the atmosphere we want as humanity.
The technology does not exist at large enough scales to significantly effect the atmosphere, and even if it did, how are you going to power it?
>Natural occurrences such as the Azolla event have had far more impact on climate than humans exploiting stored carbon.
Non sequitur
Who exactly are you trying to convince? Yourself?
>>7959688
Is that will smith crossed with george costanza?
>>7954739
Underrated post.
It's clear that the ideological bias internal and external to the field supports alarmism.
>>7957282
Your BS poll of 1% is a lie.
>scientists do actual research
>retards sit around at home collecting welfare or working minimum wage jobs because they're useless now that machines have automated factory work
>retards turn on fox news
>'scientists are now saying climate change has irreversibly damaged the environment'
>retard looks outside and sees snow
>retard eats another cheeto
>'AINT NO GLOBAL WARMAN ROUND HERE'
>scientists do actual research
>schizo logs on to infowars.com
>scrolls through boards titled 'moon landing hoax' '9/11 hoax' 'flat earth theory' before reaching climate change denial central
>'hey fellow truthers i found this secret site full of big pharma and climate change reptilians called /sci/'
>schizos flood in from both /x/ and 911insidejob.com
>DERES NO EVIDENCE. ADMIT U R A CORPORATE SHILL
>10 of these threads a day
i hope the worst of the worst model of possible climate change outcomes is correct and the trees all die and the ocean turns to acid and your kids melt like that scene in terminator
>>7961499
Are there really people from infowars on here? I mean, have you seen threads pointing to here?
>>7954739
This right here.
>>7959398
Oh, and this is good as well.
>>7957286
If this is measuring change in all those factors, it's showing continuous increases and high correlations
>>>7959555 (you shill)
>>7959529
> I had no idea the page you posted even existed, but thanks for providing a more thorough pseudoscience
ftfy
>>"During 'El Nino' years, when the Southern Oscillation Index is negative, upwelling and biological productivity virtually cease, the surface waters are depleted in nutrients, and the carbon dioxide partial pressure in the sea is about the same as in the atmosphere. CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE LUX OF C02 FROM TROPICAL WATERS INTO THE AIR."
>>A classic example of cherrypicking quotes,
> Hurr durr saying the tropical CO2 flux is not appreciable is cherry picking
What did the paper say?
>"Nevertheless, atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase during...the 1982-83 El Nino by the
> contributions from the land biota, caused by widespread forest fires and plant deaths due to drought."
What a load of crap. That was the 1982-1983 El Nino! You're the cherrypicker. I showed how the argument didn't apply to the 1997-1998 El Nino, not to mention the 2002 El Nino. What? You're going to tell me that a gigantic amount of forest fires occurred (by pure coincidence) during the 1998 El Nino?
The whole point here is that a theory was published in 1985. A test of that theory occurred in 1998. It failed, but you believed it anyway. There is no good evidence of a global uptick in burned acreage in 1997-1998. Those years are not statistically different from, say 1996 or 1999. For example, there was no uptick in the U.S. level of burned acreage. Pic related. (The assertion of increased land biota is too vague to be testable.)
>>7961574
-continued
>>>7959575 (You Shill)
>>7959555
>>7959532
So what is really going on here? The paid shill got caught with his pants down, figuratively speaking. This was the argument he was attempting to make.
Paid Shill's Argument:
1. CO2 Goes up
2. Then temperatures go up.
3. Including Surface Temperatures going up (like El Nino);
4. Then CO2 goes down (as asserted in the 1985 paper, absent forest fires.)
5. Then things cool down and CO2 goes up making it look like CO2 rise comes after temp rise; an epiphenomena.
An interesting little theory which he asserted somewhat sloppily here:
>>7959441
>The lag you are seeing when you isolate the noise is simply the natural effect of El Nino spreading changes in CO2 concentration from the equator to the poles, an effect which has been known since the 80s:
The paid shill did not expect someone to actually compare the theory to more recent El Ninos. So when caught, he pretended that wasn't his theory all along, but that "muh, more CO2 during El Ninos, though its coincidental because forest fires in 1982" This, of course, renders the theory unfalsifiable,
more CO2 during an El Nino => Muh, forest fires, Climate Change is True!
less CO2 during an El Nino => this explains that eventually CO2 goes up after temps go up (and then go down), Climate Change is True!
For those of you new to Climate Change "Science," the 'heads I win, tails you lose' explanations are SOP.
>>7961580
-continued
>>>7959575 (You Shill)
>>7959532
So the paid shill got caught asserting a failed theory so he tried to pretend that wasn't what he was asserting all along. But it was: >>7959441
and it can also be demonstrated by referencing a Climate Change shill site, realclimate.org:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/
This is where the standard argument of "warming inhibits sea surface CO2 production, which after a cooling period leads to a rebound of CO2." Amongst climate change believers, it is the standard argument. In fact take a close look at their graph illustrating CO2 peaking and going down during El Ninos. Pic related.
The red line is temperature, the green line is CO2. Here's the caption:
Fig. 2: Reproduction of the lower panel of Fig 2 in Humlum et al (2012). Also shown is a 'DIFF12' for the Keeling curve (light green). Some of the strongest El Ninos are shown with grey hatching.
As stated in the figure caption, the grey hatching indicates El Nino. The great El Nino, which according to the graph occurs between Summer 1998 and Summer 1999 appears to drive down CO2 levels, appearing to validate Keeling, C. D., and R. Revelle (1985).
Unfortunately this is taken from a shill site, see next.
>>7961584
-continued
>>>7959575 (You Shill)
>>7959532
The realclimate.org site shows the great El Nino occuring from Summer 1998 to Summer 1999. Similarly, it shows a previous El Nino occuring from Summer 1995 to Summer 1996. Let's check those dates. Here is the Ocean Nino Index (ONI) which is used by the NOAA, among others to measure El Nino/La Nina conditions. Pic related. Red indicates El Nino activity, blue indicates La Nina activity.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
So when are the red (El Nino) dates for the 1998 El Nino? The is taken from the web page, it runs December through November horizontally. They are March 1997 to March 1998. The realclimate.org graph shows Summer 1998 to Summer 1999. But that is a La Nina! The same is true for the summer 1995 to summer 1997 "El Nino" according to their graph. Again, that's NOT an El Nino, that's a (COLD) La Nina.
What just happened?
REALCLIMATE WAS JUST CAUGHT TAMPERING THE DATA to get the desired results. They marked times as El Ninos which were actually La Ninas! The Keeling et al. (1985) theory was actually falsified; yet they pretended it was verified. (Again, there is no statistically significant evidence of above average global burnt acreage during 1997-1998.)
For those of you new to Climate Change "Science," data tampering is SOP.
>>7961591
This brings us to our second, related issue. The actual phase relationship between CO2 and temperature.
>>>7959575 (You Shill)
>>7959532
>>The fact that CO2 goes up AFTER temperatures is a well known fact and falsifies Climate "Science."
>Yes a fact that climate science recognizes and is part of AGW theory falsifies AGW theory! If you you >would realize that this is not some new discovery being ignored,
Never said it was.
> Increasing temperature causes the oceans to release carbon dioxide.
Time for a good belly laugh. The paid shill just cited a paper, Keeling et al. (1985) here >>7959441
What did Keeling assert? "During 'El Nino' years, ... THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE FLUX OF C02 FROM TROPICAL WATERS INTO THE AIR."
Now the paid shill says that hot weather (EL Nino) causes oceans to increase their CO2 flux into the air (out-gassing)!
HE CONTRADICTED HIMSELF IN JUST A FEW SENTENCES!!
Warming Oceans outgas CO2 => Climate Change is true!
Warming Oceans do not outgas CO2 (Keeling, 1985) => Climate Change is true!
Again, heads they win, tails you lose.
>>7961593
- Continued
>>7959575
>>7959555
>These are basic facts anyone should be aware of, yet you are ignorant of them.
>>Show a graph of the phase relation of CO2 and temperature where they correlate and CO2 goes up first.
>>THEY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>See pic...
THEY STILL DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION
Did the paid shill post a pic of the phase relation between temperature and CO2? No, instead he merely graphed CO2 and temperatures. Notice that the resolution of CO2 change is miniscule to hide up/down activity. In short, a strawman argument. Strawman arguments are part and partial to Climate Change shills. unSkepticalScience does it all the time. They pretend to answer a question, but instead answer a different one. I ask the question again:
Provide a graph of the PHASE RELATION of Global temperature and Global atmospheric CO2 which shows CO2 going up BEFORE temperatures.
The paid shill can't do it. Instead he'll post a different graph or simply yell "loon!", "conspiracy theorist!", or maybe "muh Consensus!" There is always the staple of shills, denial: "I already did!" All of which are no substitute for an actual phase relation graph comparing CO2 to temperature. Speaking of CO2 and temperature graphs, look at the attached pic. Notices the huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 between about 1945 and 1975. Yet no temperature increase! Again, AGW is falsified. Not that they care because AGW is not a scientific theory.
- Continued
>>7959575
>>7959555
That a paid shill will contradict himself, misrepresent what he said, and use strawman arguments is part and parcel of the public defense of AGW Why? Because this is not about science.
No this is about being paid to help the United Nations gain enormous amounts of money. Whether these guys are "useful idiots" or quite aware of what they are doing is irrelevant. They are helping the U.N. steal your hard-earned tax money. BTW, the U.N. demands for big cash have gotten even more extreme. Apparently $100 Billion a year is just not enough. google it!
Nope, now they want $89 trillion in 15 years. Yes, they want nearly six trillion a year!
>>7961606
Google the World Bank on climate funding.
>>7961606
why are you worried about taxes? you clearly don't have a job and live on government handouts.
>>7961595
i think we can agree that the rate of cooling has slowed down
>>7961595The relationship between CO2 and global mean T is nonlinear, so this doesn't really prove your point
>>7961389
yes
>>7961574
>wildfires burned more land before the 1950s than they do today
>therefore El Nino can't possibly contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere
Do you realize, as you make these arguments, just how little the one has to do with the other?
>>7961591
Dude, your problem here is that you can't read graphs. The marked-up Humlum et al. (2012) graph that you're accusing of being faked has an x-axis where each labeled tick represents the START of the year, not the MIDDLE of the year. (You can verify this by looking at the seasonal fluctuations in CO2, which peaks in Northern Hemisphere summer and troughs in Northern Hemisphere winter.) And so according to the graph there were El Nino phases late '82 and early '83, late '86 to '87, late '94 to early '95, and late '97 to early '98, WHICH ARE ALL CONFIRMED BY THE NOAA DATA YOU POSTED.
Here we have it in a nutshell, folks. The denier thinks he's discovered conclusive evidence of fraud, but it turns out he's just too retarded to accurately read a graph.
>>7961593
your problem is that you're conflating El Nino effects (short-term) with climate change effects (long-term).
sustained warming DOES lead to the release of CO2 from the oceans (and other sources) but El Nino perturbations also fuck up ocean currents, reducing Eastern Pacific upwelling and thus temporarily slowing the release of CO2 from deeper waters.
I'm not surprised that a guy who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate would be incapable of differentiating between short-term and long-term effects.
![global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/hQmJg7f.gif "global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009[1].gif")
>>7961595
>Did the paid shill post a pic of the phase relation between temperature and CO2? No, instead he merely graphed CO2 and temperatures.
...that's the same thing
>Notice that the resolution of CO2 change is miniscule to hide up/down activity.
You've never seen seasonally adjusted figures before? CO2 fluctuates regularly and predictably with the seasons, so they adjust for that. This removes noise and allows for larger trends (stuff caused by things other than the orbit of the Earth around the Sun) and see what THEY'RE doing. It's no different than correcting tidal effects out of sea level measurements. But I'm sure that you're going to cry TAMPERED over and over again anyway, because actually analyzing the data with statistical tools is apparently heretical if it doesn't end up supporting your opinions.
>In short, a strawman argument.
You don't actually know what a strawman argument is, do you?
>There is always the staple of shills, denial: "I already did!"
And there is always the staple of deniers, denial: "You didn't do it! That evidence doesn't mean anything!"
But sure, I'll give you the absurdly-specific graph you're demanding, if only to see you reject it out-of-hand like you do all evidence you don't like. Pic related. You can see temperature fluctuating somewhat, holding fairly steady through the '50s and '60s even as CO2 rises faster than before, and then temperature shoots through the roof in the '70s and later as CO2 continues to rise. Eat it, bitch.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
>>7961615
>international banking organizations are coordinating so that countries can work against climate change without wrecking their economies
>therefore it's a communist plot to control all our emone
They're not asking for people to give money to the UN, you paranoid retard. They're talking about individual governments investing in infrastructure and research.
>muh world government conspiracy
>>7961574
>I showed how the argument didn't apply to the 1997-1998 El Nino, not to mention the 2002 El Nino.
What argument? I never argued El Nino caused flux, I said that El Nino shifts changes in CO2 concentration from the equator to the poles. The page you posted from Skeptical Science doesn't even mention the paper I posted or El Nino at all. Do you even know what you're arguing against?
>What? You're going to tell me that a gigantic amount of forest fires occurred (by pure coincidence) during the 1998 El Nino?
Pure coincidence? The El Nino-La Nina cycle causes extreme drought depending on which part of the world you are in. Drought is the primary cause of forest fires.
>The whole point here is that a theory was published in 1985. A test of that theory occurred in 1998. It failed, but you believed it anyway.
What theory is that? You aren't even arguing with anything I said. You just picked out one sentence from the 1985 paper that is not relevant and decided to argue against it.
>There is no good evidence of a global uptick in burned acreage in 1997-1998. Those years are not statistically different from, say 1996 or 1999. For example, there was no uptick in the U.S. level of burned acreage. Pic related. (The assertion of increased land biota is too vague to be testable.)
There is no way to conclude this from the graph you posted, because the rise in CO2 during El Nino is insignificant unless you isolate the noise. The cause of this blip is just as insignificant in the long term trend. The 1985 paper stated that the amount of wildfires during the previous El Nino was enough to account for the rise in CO2, but this doesn't mean that you can see it on a graph. But again, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
>>7961730
>World government wants to control hydrocarbons in the oil age
>paranoid retard
wew, read more history.
>>7961580
>Paid Shill's Argument:
>1. CO2 Goes up
>2. Then temperatures go up.
>3. Including Surface Temperatures going up (like El Nino);
>4. Then CO2 goes down (as asserted in the 1985 paper, absent forest fires.)
>5. Then things cool down and CO2 goes up making it look like CO2 rise comes after temp rise; an epiphenomena.
>An interesting little theory which he asserted somewhat sloppily here:
>The lag you are seeing when you isolate the noise is simply the natural effect of El Nino spreading changes in CO2 concentration from the equator to the poles, an effect which has been known since the 80s:
What a fucking mess you've made. Can you explain exactly what the last sentence has to do with the argument above? Because they have literally nothing in common. The positive feedback loop between CO2 and temperature explains the *trend*. As I have already pointed out, your isolated noise says nothing about the trend and is a completely separate phenomenon that is caused by El Nino. Yet you continue to conflate the two. Are you actually illiterate? Do you need to go back to elementary school? Don't come back until you can read a post and respond to it coherently.
>>7961584
>This is where the standard argument of "warming inhibits sea surface CO2 production, which after a cooling period leads to a rebound of CO2." Amongst climate change believers, it is the standard argument.
Warming DOESN'T inhibit CO2 production. Warming increases flux. But El Nino does not increase flux. It's really not that hard to read what I'm saying, yet every single time you post you fuck it up. If you can't get these simple facts about AGW theory right, then you have no business arguing against it. You sound like a raving lunatic, and your posts, layered under multiple levels of self-induced confusion and spittle-flecked impotent rage, give me headaches.
>>7961980
>wew, read more history.
yeah, tell me about all the times a world government took over a key resource and used it to control the world.
OH WAIT, IT'S NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, LAD.
>>7962014
>Warming increases flux. But El Nino does not increase flux.
Basically this. For some reason he can't distinguish between a warming trend and an El Nino-caused warming excursion. Probably has something to do with how deniers love to pick the 1998-2015 interval for temperature.
>>7961595
>Did the paid shill post a pic of the phase relation between temperature and CO2? No, instead he merely graphed CO2 and temperatures.
LOL, that is how you show a phase shift.
>Notice that the resolution of CO2 change is miniscule to hide up/down activity.
The resolution does not hide anything, it is the full resolution of the data it's sourced from by WoodForTrees. What you are trying to say is that I removed intra-annual cyclical variation by graphing the annual mean. But the original graph you love so much *does the exact same thing*. The intra-annual cycle is irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>Speaking of CO2 and temperature graphs, look at the attached pic.
What a fucking hypocrite. First you whine about me removing cyclical annual variation in CO2 and then you post a graph that does the exact same thing. Are you completely incapable of rational discussion?
Anyway, your graph is idiotic. First it uses anthropogenic CO2 instead of the actual CO2. Not really an issue since they have basically the same trend, but still misses the point. Second it cherrypicks sections of warming by choosing outliers. Drawing a line from a cold year to a warm year does not give the rate of warming. Third it implies that these rates must be explained by anthropogenic CO2 when that is not the claim. The claim is that the long term trend is explained by CO2, but there is plenty of short term variation, and that is exactly what the outliers used to cherrypick "rates of warming" are. You make this so fucking easy when you post obvious horseshit like this.
>>7961595
Do you simply not understand what a "trend" is?
Because I can't see any other explanation for coughing up a post that bizarre.
>>7962058
You were looking at it, the Pope of Rome took over human resources in all of Europe, the known world through the dark ages. Had them kill each other off.
Now, in pic, teaming up with emperor of Chinkdumb and UN - prototypical world government to control your carbons. Carbon is the element of life here on earth, giving up control over it without a fight? To the Pope of Rome, a Chink emperor and the UN? The name is Billy, not Silly. It won't actually happen because not everyone is a naive as yourself, but they always try. History repeats all the time.
>>7962201
TIME CUBE
Global temperature is amazingly stable. How is that possible? And no amount of CO2 can prevent the coming ice age.
>>7962218
Shitty troll is shitty
>>7962201
>massive, continent-spanning empire collapses
>some time later, pontiff demands lip service from a bunch of kings
>see look! world government happened!
so you think that the Dark Ages are an example of world government all presided over by the Pope? dude, the reason they're known as the Dark Ages is because shit pretty much fell apart. very little communication or trade over long distances, no idea of nationhood, just a bunch of tiny little insular kingdoms and principalities. that's the exact OPPOSITE of world government.
but yeah, I'm sure the Pope had all the strings of Europe wrapped around his digits, huh?
Climate change is real, the earth's climate has always changed.
>>7962218
Denierfag's age is amazingly stable. How is that possible? Is shitposting the secret to immortality?
>>7962201
Why are you so obsessed with the fucking Pope? That makes even less sense than the normal denier obsession with Al Gore.
Also, if you think the UN is a "prototypical world government", you obviously have never read a single non-tinfoil news article. They're about as influential as a mascot at a soccer match.
What if I told you climate change is real but authoritarian government is not the answer?
>>7962218
The diagram is correct, you can even see the short warming period around 1940. The reason for the stability is a negative feedback mechanism in the troposphere (ocean, water vapor, clouds, albedo) that works within a certain temperature range. When a tipping point is reached, positive feedback takes over and a new equilibrium is rapidly established. Ice ages are much more stable than the short interglacial periods.
>>7954433
>In my opinion, the beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't requiere faith
Science is literally a religion.
You believe that the method used to find the truth is accurate.
You don't know whether your method is showing you the truth, you only know that you are considering what you find to be a truth of sorts which you believe to be good enough.
>>7962218
>farenheit
can I get this in K?
>>7963105
You believe he doesn't know whether his method is showing him the truth, you believe he only knows that he is considering what he finds to be a truth of sorts which he believes to be good enough.
>>7963109
Don't you have any healthy skepticism?
I really hope you're an engineer or something and not involved in any science.
>>7963105
Consensus science based on computer simulations and manifesting scary prophecies is a religion. Garbage in, garbage out.
>>7963111
everyone's opinion is vulnerable to being attacked on epistemological grounds, yours is no exception
skepticism is always healthy yes, if you have evidence that contradicts a theory then you may need to adapt the theory or scrap it altogether
so show me the evidence
>>7963107
>farenheit
*Fahrenheit
you should be able to diy
>>7963174
I shouldn't have to.
>>7954433
Climate change is stupid. It's getting a bit hotter, so what? Some even think that since its getting hotter, we get more water vapor, which will make more clouds and clouds will again stop sunlight from coming in and cool down the planet. It's hard to predict the climate, and its a waste of time doing so.
The real thing that is killing our planet is polluting the ocean and deforestation. We need to make food production more efficient and have it take up less space.
Only 3% of the earth is covered by urban areas, while 33% is covered by agriculture. If we can get the space agriculture take up, down, we can grow back our forests.
Oil, coal and gas will eventually run out, and we will be forced to use something different. Electrical cars are seeing big improvements, and we are getting better at nuclear energy and solar energy.
I know we need oil for a shit ton of products, but hopefully we will leave some of it behind.
>>7963209
>It's getting a bit hotter, so what?
Rapid periods of warming such as this are harmful to the status quo ecology of the planet, which humans rely on. Animal and plant species don't have time to adapt to such rapid changes. It also causes more extreme weather, which is directly harmful to human infrastructure and industry.
>Some even think that since its getting hotter, we get more water vapor, which will make more clouds and clouds will again stop sunlight from coming in and cool down the planet.
Water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere. The net feedback from all sources is positive.
>It's hard to predict the climate, and its a waste of time doing so.
If it's a waste of time doing so, why are you "predicting" that climate change is not going to be an issue? Why are you so hellbent on denying climate change will be a problem in the face of the scientific evidence? This is just wishful thinking. It's like someone arguing evolution is false because they want the Bible to be true. I don't understand the mentality.
>be Earth
>be billions of years old
>have temperature fluctuations all the time
>be cooler than usual
>some critters burn oil, temp increases a little
"we're turning the Earth into an oven, it's anudda shoah"
>>7963309
>quo ecology of the planet
More than deforestation/general destruction of ecosystems?
>Animal and plant species don't have time to adapt to such rapid changes
The once that can't adapt, will just emigrate to a zone more suited for them.
>Water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas
Well it can also do the opposite. And we don't really know if it will have a cooling or heating effect.
>Why are you so hellbent on denying climate change
I'm not denying anything. Just saying that its better to try and stop deforestation, improve food production and increase forest where animals can live.
>Why are you "predicting" that climate change is not going to be an issue?
I'm just choosing to ignore it, as the issue will resolve itself if you are looking at how we develop. It doesn't need all the focus its getting.
>>7963422
>More than deforestation/general destruction of ecosystems?
I don't see the point in comparing them.
>The once that can't adapt, will just emigrate to a zone more suited for them.
LOL, what are you talking about? Non-human species are adapted to a specific environment and a specific climate. They can't just move to a "different zone". Where is this coming from?
>Well it can also do the opposite. And we don't really know if it will have a cooling or heating effect.
The best evidence we have points to a net positive feedback from clouds. The most successful models have net positive feedback. Anyway, if it is indeed an uncertainty, it cannot be used to argue for or against AGW.
>I'm not denying anything. Just saying that its better to try and stop deforestation, improve food production and increase forest where animals can live.
There is no conflict between stopping deforestation and limiting global warming, so this is a pointless statement. We should not ignore AGW when the best evidence we have says that it will cause problems which we can fix simply by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
>I'm just choosing to ignore it, as the issue will resolve itself if you are looking at how we develop.
You have not provided a single piece of evidence to show that it will resolve itself. You are ignoring it because you want to, not because you know it will resolve itself.
>>7963422
>More than deforestation/general destruction of ecosystems?
so because ecological degradation is a big problem, we can't do anything about any other problems? are you capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time?
>The once that can't adapt, will just emigrate to a zone more suited for them.
Confirmed for knowing absolutely nothing about dispersal.
>Well it can also do the opposite. And we don't really know if it will have a cooling or heating effect.
If only there was a whole branch of earth science devoted to studying this sort of thing...
>I'm just choosing to ignore it, as the issue will resolve itself
So when it comes to the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, we just can't be sure no matter how much research is conducted, but you're so confident that the issue will resolve itself that you figure it's not even worth thinking about. Nice selective skepticism, you twit.
These threads are an embarrassment to this board. It's blatantly obvious that a substantial portion of the posters here has no scientific knowledge about the subject and get their "science" from blogs, or worse, from other imageboards.
I'm afraid there will be a point when creationists will show up here demanding a "serious" debate on evolution.
>>7963448
Screw you you fat basement fuck. Go shitpost elsewhere else, I just want an answer on how this shit is even called, not even asking you to solve it. It's like you don't posses the basic reading comprehension skills....Jesus fuck I can't take it anymore. I posted in "are you stupid" threads but I didn't get a satisfying answer. SO, how the fuck is this shit called, IF not Thales' theorem? I literally can't find anywhere on the internet an explanation for ratios/proportions WITHOUT A FUCKING PARALLEL LINE INCLUDED. Help would be greatly appreciated, after having searched for 2 straight hours without finding an answer.
Can anyone smart explain to me how in the newer models to explain the last 15 years of temperature being flatline, the models are explaining it as heat into the ocean. Not the shallow 700 meter part of the ocean, but as heat gained >700 meter deep. How the fuck does heat settle at the bottom and not rise? Are these models making any predictions that we can falsify?
>>7963461
Maybe it's time we did have a serious debate on evolution. It violates the principle of increasing entropy, unless there's some giant source of energy nearby that's been burning for the last 6000 years. And if there was I'm pretty sure we'd know about it.
>>7963485
Changes in ocean currents cause convective transfer of heat into the deeper ocean.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
>>7963485
I don't think you understand what falsification means. It doesn't mean "Scientists keep finding evidence to support AGW, so it's getting harder and harder for me to prove AGW wrong".
>>7963461
Hey Carl aren't you supposed to be seeing your wife's son right now?
>>7963512
What
>>7963485
>How the fuck does heat settle at the bottom and not rise?
Where else would it hide if not where we don't have good measurements?
>Are these models making any predictions that we can falsify?
By the time one is falsified the new improved one with extra good handwaving is up and running.
Just stack up on popcorn and keep watching the shitshow.
>>7963517
I know, someone should tell these idiots that science is not about improving models.
>>7963209
>Oil, coal and gas will eventually run out
It will never run out but at some point EROEI goes negative. AGW is an obvious power grab at what remains, the powers that be can't just say that, or peak fossil fuels, because that's even scarier than some abstract computer modeling predicting climate anomalies. What is even scarier is the idea of 7+ billion people on this planet without abundant fossil fuels is ludicrous, fossil fuels are why we have so many people, most still in poverty but the "green" revolution spawned them. It was really just a poo brown revolution.
