Why do people argue whether global warming/climate change is real?
Why don't people just argue that we should limit the production of pollution?
Why don't people just argue that we should find alternative energy sources that are renewable?
because the best strawman is the one that works, and becomes adopted as a platform by the opposition
>>7913396
They do argue these things. Then people shoot back that the economics of renewables aren't up to snuff yet and that the curtailing of pollution will cause economic harm (cause it's definitely cheaper and easier to pollute, so you're losing that extra bit of cash). That's when people start bringing in the global warming and environment argument, as a way of saying it's going to cost more than these economists and businessmen are griping about. How much any of it is really going to cost, who should pay what and when is still a massive debate, obviously.
>>7913396
Same reason people "argue" over whether the earth is flat, evolution is true, GMOs are safe, etc.
>>7913396
Because people are smarter than we give them credit for and smart people pay other smart people large sums of money to orchestrate campaigns that refute fundamental discoveries, thereby removing the ability for the public to discuss anything further than the basis of any argument regarding the discovery further preventing the majority of the public from ever truly understanding the topic as they are lost in a constant debate over the base claim.
With the public confused and corporations paying politicians money to pretend to agree with their confused voting population, reinforcing the "controversy", it's now 60 years since the initial discovering of the rapidly warming climate and we still haven't developed renewable technologies far enough for wide distribution.
>>7913429
Think it's crap? I wish it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning
>>7913422
evolution is false. god made the world in 7 milliseconds
gmos are devils food, god made food
earth is flat because god, ya
>>7913396
>Why do people argue whether global warming/climate change is real?
Because a few politicians decided to try and take advantage of it and fudge (some) data and now anyone who tries to get involved is assumed to be apart of a vast conspiracy to control the world.
>Why don't people just argue that we should limit the production of pollution?
>Why don't people just argue that we should find alternative energy sources that are renewable?
Because the only alternative is nuclear energy, but economics heavily favors sticking to oil and natural gas.
>>7913422
I believe in a flat earth because it sounds less boring than reality.
>>7913396
>Why don't people just argue that we should limit the production of pollution?
Pollution is harmful by definition.
When you burn oil completely, you make CO2 and water. What makes the CO2 "pollution" and the water not pollution?
The economic benefits of burning carbon fuels are tremendous, furthermore, the increasing CO2 levels promote plant growth and increase crop yields. But oh hey, let's just arbitrarily declare a common, naturally-occurring gas that's essential to plant growth "pollution" and start cutting back on using our main energy source, regardless of whether it's actually harmful.
>>7914380
> posting the same retarded debunked cartoon over and over again...
>>7913443
>now anyone who tries to get involved is assumed to be apart of a vast conspiracy to control the world.
Not "conspiracy". Religion.
The ecology religion STARTS from the fundamental assumption that the natural state of the world is good, and anything man does to change it is bad. Since man is changing the world more and more, it is self-evidently true that the world is being destroyed.
Therefore, if they fudge the numbers a little, bend the truth, or overstate the case to get the stupid infidel to agree that Something Must Be Done, that is not only forgiveable, but laudable. By commiting scientific fraud to propagandize against industry, they're risking their reputations, livelihoods, and perhaps even criminal punishment in their fight to save Mother Gaia from the ultimate evil.
The Climategate fraudsters, therefore, are heroes to be protected. The fraud is the proof of their virtue. Just all pull together and declare that they did nothing wrong. Anyone who disputes it is on the Bad Side. If you're not willing to lie, you don't care, and there are bigger concerns here than particular factual details.
>>7914390
We call these people "liberals"
>>7913396
>Why don't people just argue that we should limit the production of pollution?
>Why don't people just argue that we should find alternative energy sources that are renewable?
Because ExxonMobil would stand to lose a shitload of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time
>>7914380
>regardless of whether it's actually harmful.
It is harmful.
>>7914390
But what if our destruction of the world's natural state results in our own destruction. What uf we cannot separate ourselves from nature. We kill ourselves
>>7914390
>What, you don't love trash? You're a religious nutjob!
The same reason you don't admit to a murder despite overwhelming evidence. The fact that big tobacco fought labeling, restricting and taxing its product.
If you admit fault or wrongdoing, then it's no longer a fight of yes or no, but on the degree/severity of the wrongdoing. You ride the system, hope the opposition falters or gives up and nothing changes.
You never own your mistakes, you wait for someone else to. Politics 101.
>>7914405
6/10
>>7914401
>>The ecology religion STARTS from the fundamental assumption that the natural state of the world is good, and anything man does to change it is bad. Since man is changing the world more and more, it is self-evidently true that the world is being destroyed.
>But what if our destruction of the world's natural state results in our own destruction.
What if sinning makes you go to Hell?
As soon as you start talking about "our destruction of the world's natural state", you've departed from rational consideration of the issues, you've demonstrated an unwillingness to rationally consider the issues.
The world's natural state was destroyed the first time a man picked up a stick off the ground. We've been living in artificial states ever since. By the time we developed the language to have this discussion, humans had already caused countless extinctions and irreversibly changed the world. Withdrawing man from the environment would cause other extinctions and irreversible changes. There is no returning to the natural state, which was, of course, not a state at all, but an endless succession of irreversibly-changing states which simply lacked man in them.
We can only choose between one artificial state and another. If you prefer one over another, you have to make the case that it's better, not merely "more natural", which is gibberish.
>>7914436
>We can only choose between one artificial state and another. If you prefer one over another, you have to make the case that it's better, not merely "more natural", which is gibberish.
You just ignored the second part of his sentence:
>results in our own destruction.
As soon as you start characterizing a scientific position as a religion, you've departed from rational consideration of the issues, you've demonstrated an unwillingness to rationally consider the issues. You can't even respond to a single sentence without warping it into this caricature that you need in order to protect your worldview from scientific facts that contradict it. It's ironic.
>>7914447
>You just ignored the second part of his sentence:
>>results in our own destruction.
Is there any reason why I shouldn't?
>But what if our destruction of the world's natural state results in our own destruction.
>But what if A results in B?
Before you worry about B, don't you have to concern yourself with whether A is even a meaningful concept?
>As soon as you start characterizing a scientific position as a religion
Let's see now, what did I characterize as a religion...
Was it this?
>our destruction of the world's natural state
Was it this?
>the fundamental assumption that the natural state of the world is good, and anything man does to change it is bad
Whichever it was, you calling it a "scientific position" just shows that your religion is one that uses the language of science.
As for the rest, you could have saved time and just said, "No u!"
>>7914460
>Is there any reason why I shouldn't?
You made it seem as if the argument rested solely on the state being natural and not on it potentially having consequences for humans.
>Before you worry about B, don't you have to concern yourself with whether A is even a meaningful concept?
In the context of climate change, there is a state before man significantly effected the climate and a state after. Arguing over whether one can call this natural or not is simply semantics. I don't think anyone is confused over what is meant by "destruction of the world's natural state" in this context.
>the fundamental assumption that the natural state of the world is good, and anything man does to change it is bad
No one made this assumption. It's a caricature you are using so that you can dismiss your opponents without arguing with what they're actually saying.
>Whichever it was, you calling it a "scientific position" just shows that your religion is one that uses the language of science.
Whatever you need to believe.
>>7914474
>You made it seem as if the argument rested solely on the state being natural and not on it potentially having consequences for humans.
There's no argument! There's an assumption that we're destroying "the world's natural state", then the question of whether it will result in our own destruction.
>In the context of climate change, there is a state before man significantly effected the climate and a state after. Arguing over whether one can call this natural or not is simply semantics. I don't think anyone is confused over what is meant by "destruction of the world's natural state" in this context.
So now your argument is that "destruction of the world's natural state" is just a particularly shrill and loaded way of saying, "gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 due to continued burning of carbon fuels".
Nobody looks rationally at the issue of increasing CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and concludes it will result in human extinction. If we burn up all the carbon fuel, in one or two hundred years we might have higher oceans and some coastland territory will be underwater, but more of the huge areas of Canada and Siberia will be comfortably livable.
Even if you completely believe in the worst-case global warming scenarios, they just aren't very scary from a rational perspective. They're moderately disruptive locally but generally profitable on a global scale, or in other words, similar to what we can expect from continued technological advancement, but not nearly as fast or potent.
This isn't even a blip on the existential threat radar, if your concern is about humanity.
But your concern isn't about humanity, is it? Humanity is that bunch of awful monsters that's hurting your Mother Gaia. You only argue human consequences as a means of persuading people who don't share your eco-religion. And your solution is always going to be: less energy, less industry, make everyone poorer, use less land, have less children, let more people die, be less.
>>7914380
>increasing CO2 levels promote plant growth and increase crop yields
not this memescience bullshit again...
NIGGA, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CO2 ISN'T THE LIMITING FACTOR IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF ECOSYSTEMS
>>7914517
Yes it is.
CO2 best O2.
>>7914312
Probably the only valid reason
>>7914520
If CO2 were the limiting factor, fertilizer runoff would have negligible effect; phytoplankton would be unable to exploit the additional nutrients because they'd be CO2-limited. And yet, when there's a lot of runoff, we get MASSIVE algal blooms. therefore it is nutrients like phosphate, nitrate, and iron that limit plant growth.
Queer,
Eat a
Dick
>>7914380
There are multiple glaring weaknesses in your argument that range from logical fallacies to outright ignorance
>>7914502
>There's no argument! There's an assumption that we're destroying "the world's natural state", then the question of whether it will result in our own destruction.
Wow, you did it! You almost accurately described someone else's argument. Congratulations. Anyway, if you look at the original post, it is responding to your trivialization of the issue by pointing out that the issue is what consequences destroying the natural state has for man. If this is not an argument then neither is what it responds to.
>So now your argument is that "destruction of the world's natural state" is just a particularly shrill and loaded way of saying, "gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 due to continued burning of carbon fuels".
No. The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is not the change in the climate, it is the cause of the change in the climate.
>Nobody looks rationally at the issue of increasing CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and concludes it will result in human extinction.
True, but that doesn't mean it won't have serious negative consequences that should be avoided. If we like weather as it is now, if we like sea levels as they are now, if we like food production as it is now, we should preserve them. The alternative is to face potentially catastrophic risk. Will mankind be destroyed? No. Will men be destroyed? Yes.
>But your concern isn't about humanity, is it? Humanity is that bunch of awful monsters that's hurting your Mother Gaia.
And we're back to the idiotic caricatures. And you were doing so well there.
>>7914517
>>increasing CO2 levels promote plant growth and increase crop yields
>CO2 ISN'T THE LIMITING FACTOR IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF ECOSYSTEMS
It's commonly a limiting factor in growth of staple crops, though. They're our staples because they grow fast and store lots of energy in edible forms. What this means in practice is that on sunny days, they stop growing if the wind doesn't blow, because they suck down all of the CO2 in the air around them. Furthermore, selective breeding and genetic engineering of crops can be targetted to take advantage of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, particularly in improving their drought resistance and reducing the need for irrigation.
CO2's a trace gas in the atmosphere, not an abundant one. Plants collect it through pores that they also lose water through. The more CO2 there is in the air, the less water they need to trade for it.
Increasing CO2 levels also increase the benefits of fertilizing the ocean. Algae can also be very fast-growing and subject to limits of CO2 concentration. They're definitely subject to limits of trace minerals which are cheap and abundant on land. Experiments in fertilizing the open ocean have shown amazing, immediate increases in algae growth and produced bumper harvests of fish.
These measures are, of course, opposed by environmentalists as "unnatural", particularly because of the potential to grow so much algae and harvest so much biomass that we can control the atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels to our liking, without following their grim program of starving our industry of energy and "reducing our ecological footprint".
>>7914532
>>Nobody looks rationally at the issue of increasing CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and concludes it will result in human extinction.
>True
So what the fuck are you arguing about? Now your own stated position on the rational evaluation of:
>But what if our destruction of the world's natural state results in our own destruction.
...is that it's not a realistic concern.
You've argued that "destruction of the world's natural state" should be taken in context to mean "global warming", and now you've agreed that nobody looks rationally at global warming and concludes that it will "result in our own destruction".
So why did you ever step in to defend the idiot who said it, who you agreed is pushing an irrational concern?
>>7914546
>So what the fuck are you arguing about?
Your mischaracterization of others' arguments. See >>7914447
>You've argued that "destruction of the world's natural state" should be taken in context to mean "global warming", and now you've agreed that nobody looks rationally at global warming and concludes that it will "result in our own destruction".
And?
>So why did you ever step in to defend the idiot who said it, who you agreed is pushing an irrational concern?
You do realize I can point out the flaws in your argument against someone else without agreeing with everything that person says right? My point stands, you are mischaracterizing others' arguments and climatology in general in order protect your ideology from scientific facts.
>>7914534
>It's commonly a limiting factor in growth of staple crops, though.
if that were true, we wouldn't need to heavily fertilize cropland. have you been paying attention?
>Increasing CO2 levels also increase the benefits of fertilizing the ocean.
okay, this just confirms that you don't know what you're talking about. one, algal blooms of the sort discussed above are NOT good for the oceans. you get a short-lived burst of carbon fixation (far too brief to actually boost fisheries) followed by a mass die-off of algae, resulting in localized anoxia from the sudden pulse in decomposition. this results in great big dead zones where the dominant fauna are MICROBIAL.
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5541/309.short
two, and this is the more important point, INCREASED CO2 IS NOT GOOD FOR PLANKTON. many planktonic organisms are shell-builders, protecting themselves in a thin layer of calcium carbonate (calcite or aragonite). as CO2 levels rise, ocean pH falls slightly, reducing the availability of the carbonate ion and making shell-building less energetically favorable. this also affects non-planktonic organisms like corals and bivalves as well. laboratory experiments confirm that even slight acidification causes calcareous organisms to either have their growth stunted or to become shell-less, which is bad for them either way.
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joan_Kleypas/publication/248700866_Impacts_of_Ocean_Acidification_on_Coral_Reefs_and_Other_Marine_Calcifiers_A_Guide_for_Future_Research__St_Petersburg_Report/links/54b577eb0cf2318f0f998b54.pdf
>http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
tl;dr: DON'T TELL THIS BULLSHIT TO A PALEONTOLOGIST, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
>>7914380
Most combustions produce more CO2 than H2O vapour unless you're burning an alcohol, a diol, or something else with a significant amount of hydroxyl groups.
>>7914559
>Your mischaracterization of others' arguments. See >>7914447
I addressed that. Your criticism is meritless. It's not actually reasonable to equate, "destruction of the world's natural state" with global warming, and he didn't present any argument for me to mischaracterize.
>climatology in general
...and we're back to you being a true believer. Funny how you don't address my Climategate reference. You just assert that the cooked results are "scientific facts".
Even without fraud (and the fraud is well documented), climate modelling would be considered a joke of the scientific community if not for the connection to ecological religious notions and agendas. They start from shitty data and try to take an integral of chaos.
In real science, you don't just model and declare your predictions to be "scientific facts" and imply that people who don't believe your guesses are enemies of science. You model, then you check your predictions against reality. A field that's about guessing the long-term future of a unique thing under novel circumstances simply can't validate its predictions in the short term.
The idea that global climate change is more predictable than weather is pure supposition, completely unsupported by any track record of successful prediction.
The whole argument about global warming is over feedbacks. Of course more CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, which should increase temperatures around the world, on average. But its direct effect should be miniscule, lost in the noise of weather, land use changes, and the glacial cycle. The arguments for a major warming effect are all about claiming that we found the world in a delicate balance, so a little nudge will trigger a loaded gun of runaway warming.
>>7914573
>>It's commonly a limiting factor in growth of staple crops, though.
>if that were true, we wouldn't need to heavily fertilize cropland. have you been paying attention?
...and once our crops are optimally fertilized, what limits their growth? Do you suppose we're stingy with the fertilizer? We fertilize, but let the amount of fertilizer be the limiting factor?
The rest of your arguments aren't any better. Anyone who's too stupid to see the problem with this reasoning, or just not bothered by bad reasoning, is not going to be persuaded by any further effort on my part.
>>7914626
>...and once our crops are optimally fertilized, what limits their growth? Do you suppose we're stingy with the fertilizer? We fertilize, but let the amount of fertilizer be the limiting factor?
Diminishing returns, nigga. At some point the plant can only take up so much from the soil. CO2 is only the limiting factor under very specific circumstances (read as: tightly controlled laboratory experiments). you're trying awfully hard to believe that more CO2 will just magically make more crops grow.
>The rest of your arguments aren't any better. Anyone who's too stupid to see the problem with this reasoning, or just not bothered by bad reasoning, is not going to be persuaded by any further effort on my part.
in other words, you don't know about ocean chemistry or calcareous biota, and you sure as shit don't care.
ah well, I guess if actual peer-reviewed research won't convince you, it's sort of a lost cause. on that note, care to back up any of your claims with evidence?
>>7914615
>I addressed that. Your criticism is meritless. It's not actually reasonable to equate, "destruction of the world's natural state" with global warming
Why? You never addressed this. The context of this discussion is pretty clear, and he was responding to you talking about global warming.
>and he didn't present any argument for me to mischaracterize.
He responded to an argument in which you mischaracterized ecological proponents as religious because they only care about what is natural. And then you mischaracterized his response by repeating the very mischaracterization he argued against.
>...and we're back to you being a true believer. Funny how you don't address my Climategate reference. You just assert that the cooked results are "scientific facts".
You just assert that the results are cooked by referring to a widely debunked conspiracy theory.
>In real science, you don't just model and declare your predictions to be "scientific facts" and imply that people who don't believe your guesses are enemies of science. You model, then you check your predictions against reality. A field that's about guessing the long-term future of a unique thing under novel circumstances simply can't validate its predictions in the short term.
Climatology and AGW theory is based on well proven deductive science as well as inductive analysis of the climate. But again, all you have are conspiracy theories and insults in response to an entire scientific field. There is nothing here to respond to. You are an "enemy of science" if you dispute scientific findings because of your preconceived conclusions and not because of scientific analysis.
>>7914615
>The idea that global climate change is more predictable than weather is pure supposition, completely unsupported by any track record of successful prediction.
This is like saying you can't predict how often a die will land on a certain number because you can't predict what the die is going to land on in any individual roll. Local weather is highly variable, global climate is not because local variations cancel each other out when you take the average over the entire globe and over long periods of time. Anyway, climatologists' surface temp models have been proven accurate for decades, but of course this is only more evidence that scientists are fudging data, right? See the problem with arguing this way is that anything you want can be a conspiracy or a religion. You can convince yourself of anything that way. The problem is no one else is going to take you seriously.
>The whole argument about global warming is over feedbacks. Of course more CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, which should increase temperatures around the world, on average. But its direct effect should be miniscule, lost in the noise of weather, land use changes, and the glacial cycle.
This makes no sense. Climate itself is the trend of weather conditions over a long period of time. To say that this can be lost in the noise of weather is like saying that because Monday was cold, we can't tell if the temperature is getting warmer or hotter in the long term. And to compound the nonsense, you then say that this will be lost in the glacial cycle, which is itself a long term trend, and one that is being countered by warming from greenhouse gas emissions.
>>7914670
>>...and we're back to you being a true believer. Funny how you don't address my Climategate reference. You just assert that the cooked results are "scientific facts".
>You just assert that the results are cooked by referring to a widely debunked conspiracy theory.
Just keep repeating that it's a "widely debunked conspiracy theory", even though it's obvious fraud to anyone who reads the leaked materials for themselves.
They don't just cherry-pick data sets, but truncate them when they stop giving results that don't support their conclusions, and "correct for experimental error" based on assumptions that presuppose the conclusions they want to reach. They talk openly about doing so. Furthermore, in the source code, you can see that the data is shit, the software is shit, and they just fiddle with it until it shows the results they want.
It's circular reasoning, they know it, and they deliberately, consciously hide the circularity.
>Climatology and AGW theory is based on well proven deductive science as well as inductive analysis of the climate.
...which is why, twenty years ago, they were all telling us, "Temperatures are going to stay level for the next twenty years, and then when we have a year roughly as warm as this one, but possibly slightly warmer (we'll be measuring with different methods by then, so we won't properly be able to compare) we'll start crowing that the 'pause' is over and the warming was really just hiding." right? Because they're good at predicting stuff?
It's a mixture of biased guessing and fraud to hide the bias. Arguing that they use products of science in their work, therefore their predictions are scientific facts, is like arguing that because you're using intelligent software to post on 4chan, what you've written is intelligent.
None of them predicted the "pause", except the people saying global warming isn't real. Because it wasn't a pause and it's not over. We're just having a warm year.
>>7914720
>Just keep repeating that it's a "widely debunked conspiracy theory"
Actually I said it once. But if you want to, you can look at the several investigations of the emails that all concluded there was no wrongdoing and no conspiracy. Ah but of course they're all in on the conspiracy. How convenient.
>even though it's obvious fraud to anyone who reads the leaked materials for themselves.
You mean it's obvious to someone who doesn't understand the context of the emails and what they mean, and just goes by how they sound?
>They don't just cherry-pick data sets, but truncate them when they stop giving results that don't support their conclusions and "correct for experimental error" based on assumptions that presuppose the conclusions they want to reach.
Where?
>...which is why, twenty years ago, they were all telling us, "Temperatures are going to stay level for the next twenty years
Nice meme.
>It's a mixture of biased guessing and fraud to hide the bias.
In your fevered imagination.
>Arguing that they use products of science in their work, therefore their predictions are scientific facts, is like arguing that because you're using intelligent software to post on 4chan, what you've written is intelligent.
I'm not arguing that their predictions are accurate because they used scientific tools, I'm arguing that their predictions are accurate because a) they are based on scientific reasoning and fundamental physics, b) they are based on models that are proven accurate.
>None of them predicted the "pause", except the people saying global warming isn't real. Because it wasn't a pause and it's not over. We're just having a warm year.
Every 20 years has a "pause" if you want to see one there. In reality, there never was a pause.
>>7914712
>This makes no sense. Climate itself is the trend of weather conditions over a long period of time. To say that this can be lost in the noise of weather is like saying
>this can be lost in the noise of weather
>this
>a sufficiently small difference in temperature
Let's keep in mind what we're actually talking about. The "this" in your sentence is not "climate" but "a sufficiently small difference in temperature".
The climatic temperature can not be an arbitrarily precise figure. If you measure the average temperature in one place over one decade, and then you measure the average temperature over the next decade and it's half a degree warmer, did the climate change, or did you just have more warm weather? Let's say the next decade after that turns out to be the perfect average of the previous two decades. Did the climate cool again, or does this show that the climate never changed in the first place?
It makes perfect sense to say an influence on temperature is too small to detect experimentally without being lost in the noise of weather.
The difference between the climate alarmist, positive feedback loaded gun predictions of temperature change for a doubling of CO2, and the no-feedback model of the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is about a factor of four. So what they're saying will happen after a single doubling of atmospheric CO2 would actually only happen after four doublings, or an increase of atmospheric CO2 to about sixteenfold its preindustrial level.
The simple no-feedback model matches equally well with the historical record (which shows little to no influence of CO2 concentration changes on global temperature, but rather shows CO2 following global temperature as warmth drives CO2 out of the oceans and cold draws it back in, in response to changes which clearly aren't happening because of CO2, which is only a weak greenhouse gas) and considerably better with the instrumental record since AGW alarmism got started.
>>7914746
>the historical record (which shows little to no influence of CO2 concentration changes on global temperature, but rather shows CO2 following global temperature as warmth drives CO2 out of the oceans and cold draws it back in, in response to changes which clearly aren't happening because of CO2, which is only a weak greenhouse gas)
there's a problem with your explanation that changes in atmospheric CO2 are the result of it being absorbed and released by the oceans in response to changes in temperature. namely, we have a way of measuring how much CO2 the oceans are carrying: pH. and the pH of the oceans has been in decline for decades (i.e. since the start of the instrumental record), suggesting that the oceans contain MORE CO2, not LESS.
>>7914746
>Let's keep in mind what we're actually talking about. The "this" in your sentence is not "climate" but "a sufficiently small difference in temperature".
No, it's "an increase in temperatures around the world, on average". If it's lost in the noise of weather there is no increase to be seen. It's clearly not "sufficiently small" to be lost in the noise of weather since we can clearly see it if we look at a graph of average global temperatures.
>The climatic temperature can not be an arbitrarily precise figure. If you measure the average temperature in one place over one decade, and then you measure the average temperature over the next decade and it's half a degree warmer, did the climate change, or did you just have more warm weather?
Again, do you understand what climate is? It is simply the trend in weather over a long period of time. A change of half a degree over several decades is by definition a change in climate, and it means weather is getting warmer.
>It makes perfect sense to say an influence on temperature is too small to detect experimentally without being lost in the noise of weather.
You said it was "an increase in temperatures around the world, on average". so is it an increase or is it lost in the noise? You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.
>So what they're saying will happen after a single doubling of atmospheric CO2 would actually only happen after four doublings, or an increase of atmospheric CO2 to about sixteenfold its preindustrial level.
If you ignore the fundamental physics which tells us that CO2 and water vapor form a positive feedback loop.
>>7914740
>Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
Cute. A new invention! Now, instead of "hiding the decline" they can "hide the pause"!
Note that it's not a temperature. It doesn't claim to be a temperature. It's the "Land-Ocean Temperature Index", an arbitrary combination of surface temperature estimates with ocean temperature estimates.
Never mind where the data came from or how its been chosen and massaged, it's a "temperature index" that we can define however we want, so it's a Real Scientific Fact that it's going up!
Stop looking at the surface temperatures by themselves! Especially stop looking at that pesky satellite data! We've found a new thing to measure, with no reliable data from the past to contradict our estimates and proxies!
I honestly never cared if climate change is true or not, I'm not going to do anything about it. I'd rather do math.
>>7914746
>The simple no-feedback model matches equally well with the historical record (which shows little to no influence of CO2 concentration changes on global temperature, but rather shows CO2 following global temperature as warmth drives CO2 out of the oceans and cold draws it back in, in response to changes which clearly aren't happening because of CO2, which is only a weak greenhouse gas) and considerably better with the instrumental record since AGW alarmism got started.
LOL you just said the historical record can be explained with no feedback and then tried to explain why by using the feedback effect. CO2 following temperature because of it being driven out of and into the oceans due to the temperature rising/decrreasing IS the feedback effect, idiot. The only difference between the mechanism of the interglacial feedback and the AGW feedback is that in the former the warming is started by eccentricity in Earth's orbit while in the latter it is started by the greenhouse effect from man's CO2 emissions. Warming from Earth's orbital eccentricity by itself is far too weak to explain the rapid rise of the intergalactic. Hence, the feedback loop is required to explain it. Similarly, the greenhouse effect from CO2 by itself is too weak to explain current temp rises, hence the feedback loop is required. You are arguing that the existence of the feedback loop proves the feedback loop does not exist. That's literally what you just argued. Where are you getting this?
>>7914763
>there's a problem with your explanation that changes in atmospheric CO2 are the result of it being absorbed and released by the oceans in response to changes in temperature.
Certainly. The problem is that it's not my explanation of the current atmospheric CO2 level, it's your misintepretation of my reference to the prehistoric data.
Remember "An Inconvenient Truth"? Remember that smoking gun evidence Al Gore showed off, the scissorlift scene, where he showed the long-term record, in the deep prehistoric past, of the correspondence between CO2 and temperature? Then at the end he gets on a scissorlift to show how high the CO2 has gone, implying the temperature would surely follow.
Remember how he stood up in front of everyone, and said to look at how the CO2 and temperature levels correspond so neatly, and all of the AGW alarmists and climate scientists applauded and told the public to watch Al Gore's great movie that explains global warming so well?
The CO2 was following the temperature, many years behind it. The temperature would up (with the CO2 still low), and then the CO2 went up to match it. Then the temperature went down (with the CO2 still high), and the CO2 slowly followed. It looks like they're moving in unison because the timescales are so long. And the scientists already knew that. If a big change in temperature follows our big change in CO2 this time, rather than the other way around, it will be the very first time that has ever happened.
So this is how you can tell somebody pushing AGW is either terribly ignorant, or not interested in being honest. They can talk to you about An Inconvenient Truth without telling you about what a ridiculous lie the featured scissorlift scene was, that the supposed smoking gun argument was a total sham.
>>7914779
Not sure what you're trying to argue here. Obviously if we want to talk about the global climate we need to average temperatures over the entire globe. That is what climatologists study, it's not some "new thing". You have no idea what you're talking about, you are just dismissing anything that disagrees with your preconceived conclusion. There is no scientific data that will convince you, so this is not a scientific discussion and is pointless. I'm out.
>>7914763
>The CO2 was following the temperature, many years behind it. The temperature would up (with the CO2 still low), and then the CO2 went up to match it. Then the temperature went down (with the CO2 still high), and the CO2 slowly followed. It looks like they're moving in unison because the timescales are so long. And the scientists already knew that.
...because of the feedback effect between warming, CO2, and water vapor. You seem confused about what the feedback loop is. You are confusing what triggers the feedback loop with the mechanism being triggered.
>If a big change in temperature follows our big change in CO2 this time, rather than the other way around, it will be the very first time that has ever happened.
Of course. It's the first time man has released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Instead of orbital eccentricity starting the CO2 rise, which then causes more warming, more CO2, etc. In the past this wasn't started by CO2 rising, now it is. You are attempting to argue that because AGW is not like prior warming, it must not exist. But in fact AGW being different from prior warming is exactly the point.
>>7914802
>Obviously if we want to talk about the global climate we need to average temperatures over the entire globe.
...and some arbitrary distance into certain parts of the globe, right?
The actual surface temperature record does not show that uptick at the end. Surface temperatures are roughly equal now and twenty years ago. They might be a little warmer, they might be a little colder. They're within the range of experimental error.
What they've started doing now, because the good, reliable data on global surface temperature (thanks to satellites designed specifically to measure it, launched in the interests of studying global warming) doesn't support their alarmism, is mixing surface air temperature with ocean water temperatures at a certain arbitrary depth.
We simply don't have good global ocean water temperature data for a significant period of time. This meant they were free to estimate past ocean water temperatures however they liked so they could pretend whatever the current (i.e. first reliable) measurements show is actually a sharp uptick, and "the pause" was not a real pause in warming at all, but the warming somehow going to hide in the oceans, despite the temperature of the air above those oceans not being any warmer.
If were concerned about climate change why don't we spend a couple million on sea misting voats to turn water into water vapor to increase albido enough to cancel any possible greenhouse effect
Then we can keep burning that precious fossil fuel and the greenies get their climate stasis
Oh wait, because the green movement is a religous movement about mans original sin of technology and how we need to stop man from breeding so the soviets can take over
>>7914816
>>7914792
Nobody knows why the temperatures went up and down in the deep past. There's very limited evidence of what was going on.
When people talk about strong feedbacks causing rapid warming in the modern age, they are NOT talking about the ocean releasing more CO2. That is a very slow process. We wouldn't have to worry about that for centuries.
The theory that orbital eccentricity started the warming at the ends of glacial periods, and then feedback from CO2, and other positive feedbacks responding to the CO2 feedback, pushed it to the peak, is just a theory. It's not any more or less consistent with observation than the theory that the CO2 had negligible effect on temperature.
What we do know is that when the temperature dropped from these peaks, it went while the CO2 was still at its peak. Something doesn't have to happen to the CO2 first, for the temperature to drop.
The temperature seems to vary entirely independently of the CO2. An influence of CO2 variation on temperature in the deep past is not observable.
>>7914842
>...and some arbitrary distance into certain parts of the globe, right?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>The actual surface temperature record does not show that uptick at the end.
The actual surface temp record is what I showed you.
>Surface temperatures are roughly equal now and twenty years ago.
Nice meme, but it's wrong.
>What they've started doing now, because the good, reliable data on global surface temperature (thanks to satellites designed specifically to measure it, launched in the interests of studying global warming) doesn't support their alarmism, is mixing surface air temperature with ocean water temperatures at a certain arbitrary depth.
The graph I posted is from NASA GISS which uses sea surface *air* temps. So yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>7913396
>Why do people argue whether global warming/climate change is real?
The only places where it is being argued is in non-scientific circles and message boards far from reality. Also see it a lot in "letters to the editor" in shitty local papers.
A lot of people are reality-challenged.
>>7913396
Because the big energy companies would be poor
>>7914861
>Nobody knows why the temperatures went up and down in the deep past.
Paleoclimatologists know. Don't project your ignorance onto others.
>When people talk about strong feedbacks causing rapid warming in the modern age, they are NOT talking about the ocean releasing more CO2. That is a very slow process. We wouldn't have to worry about that for centuries.
No, they ARE talking about the ocean releasing more CO2, and this is necessary to understand warming right now. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1
>The theory that orbital eccentricity started the warming at the ends of glacial periods, and then feedback from CO2, and other positive feedbacks responding to the CO2 feedback, pushed it to the peak, is just a theory.
>just a theory
Can't tell if trolling or idiot.
>It's not any more or less consistent with observation than the theory that the CO2 had negligible effect on temperature.
Is every single claim you make just made up on the spot? You can't explain the rapid rise of the interglacials without this feedback.
>What we do know is that when the temperature dropped from these peaks, it went while the CO2 was still at its peak.
Interglacials end for the same reason they start, orbital eccentricity. Except this time it causes irradiance to drop. The temperature drops much slower than the rate of warming at the start of the interglacial, because the greenhouse effect from all that CO2 keeps the earth warm. So not only is this feedback effect necessary to explain the rise of the interglacial, it is also necessary to explain the decline.
>The temperature seems to vary entirely independently of the CO2
You just said that CO2 follows temperature. Now you are saying they are independent. Which is it? It's clear that CO2 and temperature are highly correlated, just not in the simple way you might think. Also, most of the interglacial warming occurs after the CO2 rise.
>>7914879
>The actual surface temp record is what I showed you.
There isn't an "actual surface temp record" of the globe dating back to the 1880s. Reliable global surface temperature data doesn't start until the 1990s (when a serious effort started being put in to collect data specifically for it, rather than estimate it from haphazardly-collected data), and the temperature has not been on an upward trend within measurement error from 1998 to the present.
I've previously posted about the well-documented fraud in producing the older, estimated global temperatures.
>The graph I posted is from NASA GISS which uses sea surface *air* temps.
I stand corrected. The shenanigans I was referring to with abusing subsurface temperatures is happening, though. I mistook your chart as a product of that.
However, I stand by my claim that the old data is unreliable (being an estimate based on a mixture of proxies and instrumental records taken under varying conditions and "corrected" based on assumptions) and that only the newest data point (one warm year, within experimental error of past temperatures) creates the uptick at the end. The claim of a warming trend in the reliably-measured period is within *acknowledged* error bars and based largely on a couple of cold years at the start and a single warm year at the end.
>>7914930
>Can't tell if trolling or idiot.
... possibly both?
>>7914615
>The idea that global climate change is more predictable than weather is pure supposition, completely unsupported by any track record of successful prediction.
/thread
>>7914712
>>The idea that global climate change is more predictable than weather is pure supposition, completely unsupported by any track record of successful prediction.
>This is like saying you can't predict how often a die will land on a certain number because you can't predict what the die is going to land on in any individual roll.
False. Weather is chaotic, therefore not ergodic, so the die analogy fails.
>>7914740
Climate keeps changing.
>>7914740
>Every 20 years has a "pause" if you want to see one there. In reality, there never was a pause.
Denying the scientific consensus of the pause.
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
Does the Global Warming Pause in the Last Decade: 1999-2008?
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;….The models did not provide answers to the physical causes for warming pause. The mechanism still remains controversial….”
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
The role of natural climatic variation in perturbing the observed global mean temperature trend
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides…”
>>7914740
>Every 20 years has a "pause" if you want to see one there. In reality, there never was a pause.
Denying the scientific consensus of the pause.
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
doi:10.1038/nclimate1229
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 15 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
“…The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…”
columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 1 March 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
>>7914740
>Every 20 years has a "pause" if you want to see one there. In reality, there never was a pause.
Denying the scientific consensus of the pause.
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
….Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist……“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
>>7914740
>Every 20 years has a "pause" if you want to see one there. In reality, there never was a pause.
Denying the scientific consensus of the pause.
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth et al – Nature Climate Change – 11 July 2014
Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 January 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
Dr. Hervé Douville et al – Geophysical Research Letters – 10 February2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
Dr. Veronica Nieves – Science – 31 July 2015
Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating
Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature warming in the most recent decade…..
>>7915943
Do you know what the words you're using mean? Ergodicity has no relevance in this context. Weather is not predictable in the long term for the same reason a die roll is not predictable, both are chaotic. The aggregates of both can be measured and predicted quite easily though.
>>7915006
>There isn't an "actual surface temp record" of the globe dating back to the 1880s.
They had thermometers back then believe it or not. Anyway, this is ancient news in climatology.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD092iD11p13345/abstract;jsessionid=2801B01E7C5FA9FBFF0D697DFCB26857.f04t01
>Reliable global surface temperature data doesn't start until the 1990s (when a serious effort started being put in to collect data specifically for it, rather than estimate it from haphazardly-collected data)
You mean you want to cherry pick data? Hypocrite.
>>7916008
Yes, apparently you do not know what the word "Ergodic" means. In a nut shell, it means that the statistics of sub-samples over different possible paths of a stochastic system will mirror the long term statistics of the system in general. For the chaotic system that is weather it means that the statistics over different possible paths, e.g., there is a hurricane or there is not a hurricane of said weather; will yield a mean value (climate) which is the same as the mean value (again climate) over the actual weather over time. However, as this simple example shows, in the long run there was either a hurricane or there was not a hurricane; not an average of hurricane and no hurricane.
In your false analogy to the tossed die; the die has a clean random variable description. The chaos of weather has no such simple description. Thus, in general, you can not arrive at summary statistics over the different possible pathways that the weather may take to arrive at a description of climate.
In general, it is this sort of chaotic behavior that makes it impossible to generalize the mean value of weather to describe climate.
>>7914534
100% bullshit. There is very little energy in CO2. It's good for pretty much nothing biochemically. What little is needed is easily supplied by the atmosphere.
>Increasing CO2 levels also increase the benefits of fertilizing the ocean. Algae can also be very fast-growing and subject to limits of CO2 concentration. They're definitely subject to limits of trace minerals which are cheap and abundant on land. Experiments in fertilizing the open ocean have shown amazing, immediate increases in algae growth and produced bumper harvests of fish.
It's not because of the CO2. It's mostly from the nitrogen and phosphorous compounds.
>>7918905
If it's so much bullshit, then why do
>satellite measurements show a greening earth
>CO2 supplementation in greenhouses leading to large increases in plant growth rate
Are you some kind of selective science denier?
>>7918962
>why do
>satellite measurements show a greening earth
because of changes in cloud cover and warming of high latitudes in the north allowing permafrost to thaw
>CO2 supplementation in greenhouses leading to large increases in plant growth rate
because in greenhouse experiments, you can actually heavily fertilize soil to the point where CO2 becomes limiting. spherical cows in a vacuum.
Fact hydrocarbon fuel is not going anywhere any time soon. Oil is cheap right now and there's always fracking. Simply put fossil fuel is cheap and plentiful and the economy needs cheap and plentiful energy. When it becomes expensive to procure fossil fuel economy dictates that a new alternative source of energy will be used. IMO said substitute should be a mixture of Nuclear Energy with Geothermal or Hydro depending on the place.
Solar and Wind energy is a snake oil that needs government subsidies to be able to be substain and Bio-ethanol takes land from food production.
About pollution, right now the most polluters are in developing countries aka China, India and the 3rd World. We already do all part, they should start to do so as well.
>>7920749
>Fact hydrocarbon fuel is not going anywhere any time soon.
How is this relevant?
>Fact hydrocarbon fuel is not going anywhere any time soon.
Because the people burning it are shielded from having to pay for all the damage they're doing.
>Solar and Wind energy is a snake oil that needs government subsidies
Except they're not? Things like offshore wind are getting close to cost parity with (unsubsidized) coal.
>About pollution, right now the most polluters are in developing countries aka China, India and the 3rd World.
No.
Australia and the USA are no.1 and 2 for per-capita CO2 emissions.
