Does /sci/ have a consensus on man made climate change?
This is 4chan. There are no consensuses on anything. Also, it's pretty hard to prove correlation and causation on a global scale, but I'm sure the scientific community generally agrees on the human impact on the environment.
>>7913550
Given that its a science board, I would want to hope the consensus mirrors that in the scientific community- that it's real, it's getting worse, it's caused by humans, and the evidence for these positions is overwhelming.
>pump zillions of tons of greenhouse gases into atmosphere
>gee i can't figure out if this will affect anything
>>7913550
Give that /sci/ is flooded with retards and /pol/shit, do you REALLY want to ask for consensus here?
>>7913550
I know that I certainly didn't cause climate change.
>>7914008
if the scientific community is "all the people paid by governments to say all those things", then thanks but no thanks.
You're gullible, never read any paper about climatology, and believe "non reproducible" and "Non testable" somehow belong in science.
>>7913973
that's the one and only beauty of this website
downsides are the exceptions (pol)
>>7915297
What exactly about climatology is non-testable?
Also, if scientists funded by the government can't be trusted, doesn't that mean all or most of science can't be trusted? Why does this logic only apply to climatology, or do you reject all science funded by government?
>>7915297
care to share your resources?
are you telling me that Carbon Dioxide doesn't absorb infrared wavelengths?
are you saying we're not emitting it?
what reason would the government have to lie about climate change, anyway? what do they gain from it?
>>7915297
Care to let the rest of us in on the unbiased source of your information?
Also, out of curiosity, what field of science and/or mathematics are you in, anon?
Yes, but only if you exclude the occasional defective from /pol/ and/or petroleum "engineer."
>>7915297
I agree with this dumbass, I sat in my car, revving the engine to max, the CO2 its kicking out is having NO affect on anything, magically pixie's are turning it into rainbows.
Also, billions of humans, billons of cars, factories, an cows that we farm to eat, all polluting, doesn't affect anything.
website with source:
www.IbelieveFoxNews.com
other info there
> Elvis is alive and living with Aliens
> JFK was killed by a time traveling JFK
> Moon landing was fake, they landed on a duplicate moon in another dimension.
you're all welcome.
>>7915377
so yeah, besides the /pol/ links, I think we all agree climate change is real
>>7915403
I'm a lazy fuck and prefer to have the facts actually presented and not be linked an external resource.
so far, I'm on the lefties' side
>>7915403
There are even more videos explaining that the earth is flat.
>>7915437
Are You implying it's not??
Think about this guys: I bring out the trash about 3x a week and the trashcan never gets full and every two weeks suspiciously empty. So if the government can make trash disappear why not co2 and nox?
>>7915403
You can find many videos on YouTube that explain how the Earth is flat and you have been brainwashed to think otherwise.
>>7915459
Hold on. I know the post is ironic, but are we actually pumping alarming amounts of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere?
>>7915482
who cares, climate change isn't real!
you heard it from our savior trump!
>>7915482
Not alarming for the world but in amounts that are unhealthy, mostly in cities - became a topic in the news again with VW and that in general diesels are pumping alot more nox in the air than "expected". In "" because every one you talk to who has slightly above average knowledge of the cat industry said that's been an open secret for years.
>>7913550
Women made climate change.
If heterosexual sex was free, we wouldn't even have invented the wheel yet.
>>7915403
While using YouTOOB as my scientific source matter, I also found out that
> creationists are right,
> I'm a misogynistic pig
> there really IS a gender pay gap if you BELIEVE hard enough.
> The rebels in Star Wars are actually the baddies.
Thanks for that awesome link you provided. The YouTube.
>>7915522
You know, interestingly enough, capuchin monkeys where taught money as a resource, given 1 coin per day, with it, they could use the join in a vending machine and buy some yummy fruit, OR a dull but healthy meal.
They choice, to pay hot sexy female capuchin monkeys for sex, and the FIRST profession the monkeys developed, was prostitution. Sex really is a driving force of nature.
Climate change is real but at this point it's too late to stop it. It's a feedback loop. Scientific consensus is that even if we stop all CO2 now the temp will rise by global 3°
People should stop whining about prevention and start coming up with technology and policies that deal with floodings and mass migrations in the near future.
>>7914041
>give a fuck of your opinion if it didnt look like it was copied and pasted from a buzzfeed article
Wow, Exxon's paid shills didn't get here until the 5th post, they must be a <insert clever pedophilic innuendo here> in town.
>>7913550
Climate models were the supposed proof of how co2 would affect climate.
Most, if not all, climate models have been completely incorrect.
There has been no warning in the past 20 years, a period in which warning was thought to take off.
Clear fudging of temperature data and evidence of collusion between some of the top proponents of anthropogenic climate change exposed via leaked emails.
We are coming out of an ice age, and the warming we have experienced over the past few hundreds years is slower than warming at the end of some previous cold periods.
If anything, we should simply begin moving inland. Eventually the temperatures will rise, even if humans never existed. Global temperatures have changed much more drastically in the past, and life wasn't extinguished. Melting ice, along with further regulation, will help to reduce ocean acidification, which is much more damaging than a slight warming of the earth.
>>7915963
Fuck swipe keyboards
Warming*
>>7915921
lol democrat shills love raiding this board
>>7913550
It's real, it's man-made, there isn't anything to stop it, nobody actually knows what will change about the climate.
More clouds or less? More rain or less?
They talk alot about rising sea levels, but there is models that suggest lowering sea levels because more precipitation will fall and more will fall in places like Antarctica where it will never be above freezing even if global temperatures rose by 10 or 12 degrees.
>>7915358
I'm a computer scientist and I know more science than you ever will.
>>7913550
climate change is real.
climate change doomsday probably isn't
we figured out how to stop global warming in the 70's. a global atmospheric sulphur injection would cost only 2 billion dollars.
we just don't know if its such a great idea.
>>7915618
Kek
Is there an article?
>>7915963
>Climate models were the supposed proof of how co2 would affect climate.
False. Models are the result of that fact, not the proof. The fact that CO2 affects climate is proven by measuring the wavelength of infrared light falling towards Earth, which tells us how much is being emitted by CO2.
>Most, if not all, climate models have been completely incorrect.
LOL, I look forward to you proving this sweeping generalization. Until then, no, climate models of surface temps have been accurate for decades. See IPCC AR5.
>There has been no warning in the past 20 years, a period in which warning was thought to take off.
False. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/trend:1995/plot/wti
>Clear fudging of temperature data and evidence of collusion between some of the top proponents of anthropogenic climate change exposed via leaked emails.
False. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
>We are coming out of an ice age, and the warming we have experienced over the past few hundreds years is slower than warming at the end of some previous cold periods.
False. We came out of an ice age thousands of years ago. According to Milankovitch cycles we should be cooling, but manmade warming is reversing that trend. Current warming is much faster than warming at the rise of interglacials.
>If anything, we should simply begin moving inland. Eventually the temperatures will rise, even if humans never existed. Global temperatures have changed much more drastically in the past, and life wasn't extinguished.
False. Again, according to Milankovitch cycles we should be cooling right now. If humans didn't exist the planet would be cooling. Similar temp rises are correlated with mass extinctions.
Is it possible for deniers to write a single sentence without lying?
>>7916049
This, if anything we are just driving ourselves to extinction, people who think humans will destroy the earth are incredibly big headed
>>7915921
yea, i wasnt attacking his stance, i was attacking him. the implication was clear, fucking retard. see, thats me attacking you, not your belief on global warming. retard
>>7916077
Models were supposed to represent how the earth would warm based on our understanding of co2 as a greenhouse gas. The models were based on that fact, and yet the models still have been largely incorrect.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf
On the ice age question, it is still heavily debated what period we are in, and nowhere near the 97% 'consensus' of scientists who believe in man caused climate change. To argue we are the cause of warming and it is not part of earth's natural cycles is pretty disingenuous in that case.
The Holocene, they say, isn't an epoch at all—just another warm period within the Pleistocene, which began about 2.6 million years ago.
>"The period we're living in is the Ice Age, basically," said geologist Philip Gibbard of the University of Cambridge in the U.K. "There is no reason to think it has finished," if history is any guide.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100406-new-earth-epoch-geologic-age-anthropocene/
Note that one of the reasons for naming this some sort of new warming period separate from typical climate changes is partly political, and there isn't enough proof.
That factcheck.org article only refers to the emails hacked in 2009. There were more in 2010 and 2011
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#3d171a39988d
>>7916077
I'm arguing that man caused climate change is blown way out of proportion, has been completely overestimated by scientists whose only funding comes from taxpayer funded grants, and that forcing co2 reduction measures in favor of wind/solar/other economically poor sources of energy is a waste of money and will hinder human progress and quite literally lead to millions of deaths due to starvation. Fossil fuels are more important than most climate change 'activists' realize. I'm all for going nuclear, but that's not environmentally friendly enough for most proponents of 'clean' energy.
>>7916111
>http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf
Taking the average of models with different randomized parameters just proves that most random parameters are wrong, not that the model is wrong. This is a very dishonest way of arguing your point. The point of climate models is not to guess how much CO2 is going to be emitted in the future or to guess natural ocean cycle variation, it's to predict the effect of these factors. If you look at projections that use correct parameters you will see that they are very accurate.
>On the ice age question, it is still heavily debated what period we are in
No, it really isn't. See pic.
>"The period we're living in is the Ice Age, basically," said geologist Philip Gibbard of the University of Cambridge in the U.K. "There is no reason to think it has finished," if history is any guide.
You must be confused, this contradicts your point, not mine.
>That factcheck.org article only refers to the emails hacked in 2009. There were more in 2010 and 2011
I don't see anything that indicates fudging of temperature data. But keep plugging away at this desperate conspiracy theory, it sure doesn't undermine your credibility.
>>7916118
>I'm arguing that man caused climate change is blown way out of proportion
Then I suggest you stop making so many false statements and learn some science before you try to argue against it.
>>7916143
That graph shows nothing. X axis is way too large to show recent meaningful human effect. And you are misunderstanding the climate models that have been used to show warming, as they have overestimated it. There has been a pause warming in the atmosphere, where co2 caused warming would be most prevalent, even though co2 levels have continued increasing.
The emails showed burying of unfavorable temperature data that showed this complete pause in warming, contradicting their models.
We are still in an ice age, but just about out. If we were entering an ice age, warming would be beneficial, as ice ages have killed way more life than warming.
The human effect has been greatly overestimated. You can't deny that.
>>7916143
The models that showed the drastic warming have been wrong, and there has been an undeniable slowdown in global temperature rise, contrary to the ever increasing amount of co2 in the atmosphere. http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
>>7915297
Dude I've taken university classes and studied those very subject. Its real
>>7916219
>That graph shows nothing. X axis is way too large to show recent meaningful human effect.
Are you retarded?
>And you are misunderstanding the climate models that have been used to show warming, as they have overestimated it.
No they haven't.
>There has been a pause warming in the atmosphere, where co2 caused warming would be most prevalent, even though co2 levels have continued increasing.
What is noise?
>The emails showed burying of unfavorable temperature data that showed this complete pause in warming, contradicting their models.
More conspiracy theories.
>The human effect has been greatly overestimated.
No it hasn't.
>You can't deny that.
Yes I can.
>>7916227
>there has been an undeniable slowdown in global temperature rise
Are you going to start taking winter of proof of global cooling too? The climate is a noisy system.
>>7914008
If you think global warming is real then why do you keep breathing out carbon you bigot?
>>7916258
Go look up the carbon cycle on Wikipedia.
Don't come back until you have at least the slightest clue.
>>7916219
>That graph shows nothing.
The graph shows the start of the interglacial was thousands of years ago and we should be in the cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycle.
>And you are misunderstanding the climate models that have been used to show warming, as they have overestimated it. There has been a pause warming in the atmosphere, where co2 caused warming would be most prevalent, even though co2 levels have continued increasing.
Troposphere temps and surface temps barely diverge, models accurately predicted warming in both. The pause in warming is a meme.
>The emails showed burying of unfavorable temperature data that showed this complete pause in warming, contradicting their models.
Where?
>We are still in an ice age, but just about out. If we were entering an ice age, warming would be beneficial, as ice ages have killed way more life than warming.
LOL we are entering an ice age... tens of thousands of years from now. Problems caused by rapid warming in the next few hundred years are a bit more important to be worrying about.
>The human effect has been greatly overestimated. You can't deny that.
I'm denying it. You don't know shit and yet you think you know better than climatologists. Read a textbook, dumbass.
>>7916227
>The models that showed the drastic warming have been wrong, and there has been an undeniable slowdown in global temperature rise, contrary to the ever increasing amount of co2 in the atmosphere.
There are "slowdowns" almost every 20 years, this does not change the facts of climate change or make the models inaccurate. Read your own article.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414
>>7916077
>>7916271
>Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
You didn't read the article or view the emails.
The warming has slowed for the past 15 years, contrary to climate models.
It's also fairly convenient taxpayer funded research is not available to the public or FOIA requests, especially with the release of these emails, which you haven't read.
Global temperatures have changed much faster than the past 200 years, before humans existed. How do you know this isn't just 'noise' in the millions of years the planet has been here? The science is not settled, and warming has been overestimated, along with the affects the warming will have. First sea levels were going to rise, now they may fall due to more rain being trapped in snow at the poles. The understanding of the extent of the effect solar activity has on climate has also changed, usually when it benefits climate scientists.
Also, that graph of the Milankovitch cycle could show we have a few more decades of warmer weather. Doesn't necessarily prove we should be cooling, especially with the large X axis.
>>7916297
Doesn't necessarily change the fact that there is a general warming trend, however refutes the idea we have entered runaway global warming caused by humans that will be catastrophic to life as we know it. Also shows how the models I have been referring to have overestimated the warming. I never said we are not experiencing a general warming trend, I'm questioning how much human activity has caused it, as these models were wrong and overestimated the effect of increased co2 levels.
>>7915963
>There has been no warning in the past 20 years
tell that to the glaciers
>>7916314
After that, ask the ice sheets why they have been at record highs.
>>7916299
>The warming has slowed for the past 15 years, contrary to climate models.
15 years is noise. Also, the "slowdown" is pretty minor is size, unless you cherrypick basically everything.
>It's also fairly convenient taxpayer funded research is not available to the public or FOIA requests
Huh?
What are you talking about.
>especially with the release of these emails, which you haven't read.
Which emails? Are you STILL rambling about climategate? Because there were MULTIPLE investigations, and none found any evidence of wrongdoing.
>Global temperatures have changed much faster than the past 200 years, before humans existed. How do you know this isn't just 'noise' in the millions of years the planet has been here?
Because we actually have a decent idea of how fast the different factors that effect weather and climate move.
>The science is not settled
Yes it is.
>warming has been overestimated
No it hasn't.
>The understanding of the extent of the effect solar activity has on climate has also changed,
Not really, no.
>usually when it benefits climate scientists.
Annnd.. back to conspiracy theories.
>>7916308
>however refutes the idea we have entered runaway global warming caused by humans that will be catastrophic to life as we know it.
...How?
>Also shows how the models I have been referring to have overestimated the warming.
How is a short-term effect evidence against a long-term trend?
>I'm questioning how much human activity has caused it
80-120%
Go and read any of the fucking papers. There simply aren't any major natural inflows of buried carbon into the carbon cycle. That's on us.
>as these models were wrong and overestimated the effect of increased co2 levels.
More assertions.
>>7916372
>>The science is not settled
>Yes it is.
>science
>ever being settled.
nice try shekelstein.
>>7916388
>When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
At least TRY and read some stuff about the stuff you're running around calling bullshit. Scientific knowledge isn't absolute, but it absolutely can be settled.
>>7916372
http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/state/article_4d17bffc-e45e-11e5-a90b-c394550ca3c0.html?mode=jqm
Climategate is so 2009.
http://m.azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/profs-emails-on-climate-change-ruled-public/article_3654cbcf-f6a1-5187-af02-e94e57be904f.html?mobile_touch=true
Don't see why it's such a problem for these emails to be released. We will see once they become public. And no, the science is not settled.
>120%
So we've caused more warming than the actual warming? Wow, that's incredible.
And no, it's not an assertion to say the models linking CO2 to warming have been incorrect over the past 15 years.
>>7916319
Ice sheet thickness in central Antarctica has increased in thickness proportionally to the decrease in area due to melting. You may remember, the sun evaporates water and this precipitates as rain or snow, most usually over mountains - no correlation to rising sea temperatures and overall ice loss there huh.
>>7916396
>links
Oh boy, more fishing expeditions. And I bet those "Energy & Environment Legal Institute" folks are real honest truth-seekers. Just look at their history.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
>Don't see why it's such a problem for these emails to be released.
Were you asleep for Climategate? denialists want emails because they can quotemine them for anything that makes legitimate scientists look untrustworthy.
If you don't have a real case, you try and discredit the opposition.
>So we've caused more warming than the actual warming?
Quite possibly.
>Wow, that's incredible.
Not really. Please tell me I'm not going to have to explain "negative numbers" to you.
>And no, it's not an assertion to say the models linking CO2 to warming have been incorrect over the past 15 years.
What do you think an assertion is?
>>7916409
More importantly, the RATE of ice growth (which is strongly connected to the temperature) is decreasing.
>>7916409
Ah. Antarctic pics..
>>7916416
When the noaa hiatus denial study is proved wrong by another study showing that the models overestimated warming and completely denied the existence of the very real slowdown in warming, along with a whistle-blower from the noaa saying their study was rushed, it raises a few questions. This is a federal organization funded by taxpayers, open to foia requests. All documents are public record unless determined otherwise by a judge. It's this thing called law, and scientists aren't above it.
On the warming percentages, that would make sense if you were referring to actual temperature increases vs expected increases, but you were referring to warming in general. You can't contribute more warming than actually occurred. Along with warming increases, one study cited in the '97% consensus' survey stated that warming in the late 1900's was 40-70% due to solar cycles.
I used assertion in the sense of the person who replied to me, implying that my assertions were simply statements not based on facts. Which is not true, as demonstrated in the study that proved the noaa hiatus denial study wrong and rushed.
>>7916416
Growth rate is decreasing much slower than climate scientists anticipated, and have conceded that the record levels of sea ice around Antarctica were a surprise. Well, before explaining it away as just another quirk of climate change.
I dont trust consensus in areas were science meets politics, what happened to peak oil? oil is cheaper than the fucking barrels its stored and European countries wasted billions on useless green energy.I'll assume climate change is an American intelligence operation to promote de-industrialization until they sign up the protocols, the only country that is not compromising just happens to be the most powerful and manipulative of them all right?
>>7916431
>You can't contribute more warming than actually occurred.
hot damn, you DON'T actually understand negative numbers.
>>7916455
>temp increases by 10 degrees
>humans responsible for 120% of the increase
>humans caused 12 degrees of temp increase, even though it only increased 10 degrees
>>7916460
>temp increases by 10 degrees
>without the effect of humans temp would have fallen 2 degrees
>humans responsible for 120% of the increase
>humans caused 12 degrees of temp increase, even though it only increased 10 degrees
>>7916461
Which is why I clarified that in my previous reply to you.
>On the warming percentages, that would make sense if you were referring to actual temperature increases vs expected increases, but you were referring to warming in general.
You never said net or expected temperature difference. You were referring to the percentage of the warming that occurred.
>>7916452
why? why ignore all the facts and take that chance? this seems absolutely retarded to me.
>>7915963
this actually makes a lot of sense
>>7916634
yes why ignore the fact that in the holocene (6 fucking thousand years ago), the temperatures were higher than today.
>AGW, racial IQ, and smoking threads every fucking day
Why can't the /pol/acks just stay on their containment board?
>>7916771
Would YOU want to stay on your home board if it was as terrible as /pol/?
>>7916780
wtf is a home board
>>7916299
>You didn't read the article or view the emails.
The irony of course being that YOU didn't read the emails, you just read quotes taken out of context:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/11/22/media-already-botching-reports-on-hacked-climat/169325
>The warming has slowed for the past 15 years, contrary to climate models.
So now we've gone from you arguing "every model is completely wrong!" to "models underestimated warming over a 15 year period". Good, good, this is progress. Again, almost any 20 year period you look at have "slowdowns". Models still accurately show the longer term trend. The slowdown is no more significant than any of the many others. If you can't explain why this is relevant to the larger discussion of whether global warming is real and manmade, there is no point in discussing it.
>It's also fairly convenient taxpayer funded research is not available to the public or FOIA requests, especially with the release of these emails, which you haven't read.
Which research is not available?
>Global temperatures have changed much faster than the past 200 years, before humans existed.
Ah, so that means... what? That because this happened before humans existed, it must be OK for humans? Where is the logic? In reality, similar rapid warmings are correlated with mass extinctions. Living things do not like sudden changes in the environment that they have no time to adapt to. This tends to cause extreme natural selection. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/04/22/G35434.1.abstract
>man made
check your cis carbon privilege smoglord.
>>7916299
>How do you know this isn't just 'noise' in the millions of years the planet has been here?
Because according to everything we know about the natural climate, it should be cooling right now. And again, we can directly measure the effect of increasing CO2 on heat trapped in the planet's atmosphere. If you don't think scientists can can know anything, why are you on the science board?
>The science is not settled, and warming has been overestimated, along with the affects the warming will have. First sea levels were going to rise, now they may fall due to more rain being trapped in snow at the poles. The understanding of the extent of the effect solar activity has on climate has also changed, usually when it benefits climate scientists.
The science is settled. There is a massive consensus among climatologists about AGW. Over significant periods, models accurately project the warming trend. You have been shown time and time again to not know what you're talking about. If you don't understand the science then stop pretending to and admit that you are only arguing against AGW because you don't want to believe it's true, not because you are thinking scientifically.
>>7916487
So you're complaining that you didn't understand what he meant by 120% and then claiming that he meant what you thought he meant?
>>7916658
No one is ignoring that fact, it's just irrelevant. The problem with global warming is not how hot it is but how fast the warming occurs. In other words, how much time life on earth has to adapt to the changing, more extreme environment. Not much time means a lot of extinctions and ultimately pain for humans.
>>7916917
No, he misunderstood what I was saying in regard to warming in my post he replied to.
>>7916895
>Because according to everything we know about the natural climate, it should be cooling right now.
But that's wrong. Previous Holocene periods, as the anon above correctly pointed out, have reached higher temperatures than we are at currently. We could be warming slightly at the rate we have seen for the next 20 year before we start cooling, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary at all. This has already been pointed out.
>Also, that graph of the Milankovitch cycle could show we have a few more decades of warmer weather. Doesn't necessarily prove we should be cooling, especially with the large X axis.
>>7916884
>mediamatters.org/BLOG
>Oh boy, the media sure is untrustworthy, so I'm going to use a blog from a leftist shill website to prove how untrustworthy the media is
I thought scientists were supposed to be smart? Why don't you look through the NOAA study, and the refutation study? Tell me, if a study was rushed for political reasons, is that problematic? Do the ends justify the means for climate scientists? Should they not be held to the same accountability standards as anyone else working for a public agency, especially one that is influential in creating policy? Failed policies costing hundreds of millions of tax dollars for 'clean' energy projects that were knew were poor investments?
>>7916884
>Which research is not available?
Any federal agency, including the noaa, is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Do you know what that means? It means that any document can be requested, reviewed by a judge for safety/state security, sensitive information redacted, then publicly released. This includes any emails pertaining to any work funded by taxpayers. NOAA did not comply with subpoenas, and took it upon themselves to decide what should and should not be released. That's not their job, and they know it. This raises red flags. Doesn't matter if they are 'scientists.' They are not above the law. Take a look at Hillary Clinton's emails. It wasn't up to her what emails to release, yet she decided to take it upon herself and her team, and now she is being investigated by the FBI for the mishandling of classified information, including emails she said were 'personal.' Do you think the FBI is full of big meanie republican bully congressmen who hate science too? Give me a fucking break.
>>7916917
>irrelevant
Its irrelevant that warming in the same climate period we are currently in has reached higher levels in the past? The rate is what matters, right? Well, the rate that was predicted in the 80's and 90's was assumed to be the rate for the next 15-20 years, and was what the climate models linking co2 to temperature rises in that time period showed.
We can agree on that.
However, this past 15 years have shown a massive slowdown in warming. OK, maybe it's just a climate anomaly that happens ever few decades.
We can agree on that.
Now, averaging the rate of temperature increase for the past 40 years yields a rate nearly half that of what would be expected if the theory of catastrophic AGW was correct. A rate that is hardly out of the ordinary of these previous Holocene levels in which global temperatures have increased to much higher levels than we currently see.
Is that hard to understand?
See pic related. The models used to project a runaway global warming with catastrophic effects, used to justify massive carbon taxes that simply pass costs onto consumers, have been overestimating warming. The hysteria was based on these models. Now that the models have been shown to be incorrect, it is dismissed as a natural occurance which changes nothing about that narrative, and after this period of hiatus runaway warming will start forreals.
>>7915297
>paid by gubmints
>despite the higher wealth of fossil fuel industry and stronger motive
>>7916030
10/10
>>7917322
Yea, the higher wealth of the fossil fuel industry has nothing to do with its cost effectiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
Take a look at solyndra.
Politics+'settled' climate science+economics= corruption.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/
>We should just pump money into inefficient clean energy that we know will fail because muh global warming
>down with the evil oil companies that produce the fuel required for every facet of economic and human development
>>7917336
The point is >muh paid opinions doesn't work when the group with opposing views (fossil fuel industry) has more money, stronger motive and risks less politically
>>7917015
>hey look these predictions didn't pan out
>I'll just ignore the fact people started paying attention to climate change and minimised emissions
Hate this meme tbH
>>7916958
>But that's wrong. Previous Holocene periods, as the anon above correctly pointed out, have reached higher temperatures than we are at currently.
How does that counter that we are in the cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycle? It's irrelevant. The fact that we are in the cooling phase is based on Earth's current orbital eccentricity, not how hot it is.
>We could be warming slightly at the rate we have seen for the next 20 year before we start cooling, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary at all.
If climatologists were completely wrong about AGW, then that could occur. What is your point?
>Also, that graph of the Milankovitch cycle could show we have a few more decades of warmer weather. Doesn't necessarily prove we should be cooling, especially with the large X axis.
Again there is no confusion about where we are in the Milankovitch cycle. Look it up. I posted the graph in response to your assertion that warming could be explained as the beginning of an interglacial. The beginning of the interglacial was thousands of years ago, so this is impossible. Current warming cannot be blamed on orbital eccentricity. The only explanation that fits the data is radiative forcing from manmade greenhouse gases. If you have a more successful alternative model, go ahead and publish it. Until then you are just talking out of your ass, denying the best data we have because it hurts your feelings.
>Oh boy, the media sure is untrustworthy, so I'm going to use a blog from a leftist shill website to prove how untrustworthy the media is
What exactly did they say that you need to trust? You can read the final draft of the IPCC report can't you? Anyway, you're a hypocrite since every argument you have made comes from conservative blogs.
>Tell me, if a study was rushed for political reasons, is that problematic?
What study was rushed for political reasons?
>>7916965
>>7916965
>Which research is not available?
>This includes any emails pertaining to any work funded by taxpayers.
Ah so emails are research?
Let's see, we went from "hacked emails clearly show climatologists tampering with data" to "climatologists didn't release emails". Yes, I can see how this would raise all kinds of red flags if you are a conspiracy theorist who has already convinced himself that climatologists are evil data tamperers and that therefore anything they refuse to release is evidence of their wrongdoing. I can also see how climatologists facing such rabid idiots would want to not cooperate with them, since their words are going to be taken out of context and used as evidence of something they didn't do. So what we have is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if climatologists hand over their emails they are "guilty" and if they don't hand over their emails they are "guilty". Of course, none of this really has anything to do with the science, it's just a political game. So I really don't give a fuck.
>>7917353
really? They didn't minimize shit, we pollute more each year.
>>7917015
>Its irrelevant that warming in the same climate period we are currently in has reached higher levels in the past?
We're in the cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycle, so this is false. And again, what matters is the rate of warming, not how hot it gets. In the past, rapid changes in temperature such as what we are currently experiencing have been correlated with mass extinctions. If species don't have time to adapt to changes in environment, lots of them are going to die, and this will probably have negative consequences for humans. So this argument is based on false premises AND the conclusion is pointless.
>Well, the rate that was predicted in the 80's and 90's was assumed to be the rate for the next 15-20 years, and was what the climate models linking co2 to temperature rises in that time period showed.
There were many rates predicted in the 80s and 90s. James Hansen overestimated the climate sensitivity of CO2, and this is partly why you see his predictions failing (also because the guessed amounts of greenhouse gasses are off). If he had used a climate sensitivity of 3.4°C, his model would be accurate.
>Now, averaging the rate of temperature increase for the past 40 years yields a rate nearly half that of what would be expected if the theory of catastrophic AGW was correct.
I'm not familiar with "the theory of catastrophic AGW", perhaps you can explain it to me?
>A rate that is hardly out of the ordinary of these previous Holocene levels in which global temperatures have increased to much higher levels than we currently see.
You haven't even shown me where you got this rate or what previous rates are. You seem to be just pulling this out of your ass. But again, this argument is three times stupid since just because something happened in the past before humans existed doesn't mean it's good for us now.
>>7917414
Not relative to previous years
In addition, a lot of heat goes into oceans, causing more co2 to dissolve and more extreme weather
>>7913550
Yes, but the deluded contrarians are always the loudest.
>>7917336
>One solar company failed
>This means every solar company has failed and solar panels are not viable
What
>>7917015
>See pic related. The models used to project a runaway global warming with catastrophic effects, used to justify massive carbon taxes that simply pass costs onto consumers, have been overestimating warming.
Hansen's model only slightly underestimated warming. If you consider such predictions justifying action then you should think current measured warming also justifies action. And if you think carbon taxes are so disastrous,
>Now that the models have been shown to be incorrect, it is dismissed as a natural occurance which changes nothing about that narrative
No it's not. The reason Hansen's predictions were wrong, as I have already explained, is that he overestimated climate sensitivity to be 4.2°C. The current consensus is that climate sensitivity is around 3°C. So it's not dismissed as natural variation, it's dismissed as outdated.
>>7917414
The recession did cause a drop in CO2 emissions, at least in the US and Europe. I don't know about worldwide.
>>7917015
>what is this, a meme graph for ants?
>oh look, another graph showing models overestimating warming starting at 1991
still haven't met a denier, apparently, who's actually heard of Pinatubo
>>7917336
>green energy startup fails
>therefore it's all an alarmist plot to take your shekels
the punch line is that the stimulus program that funded Solyndra has actually been pretty successful, but the deniers love to harp on one startup that kerploded.
>>7915342
>What exactly about climatology is non-testable?
Among other things he is probably talking about all the 'doom-saying', on which so much public policy and understanding is based.
>>7917388
All emails would be public record in any state agency. The emails were subpoenaed, and NOAA withheld emails. It is the job of a judge to determine which should and should not be public, not the agency. That's how transparency works, and these are all procedures NOAA agrees to as a state funded agency. You have blind trust for these pure super smart scientists who just published an incorrect study that was rushed, possibly for political reasons. They cannot be criminally charged or incriminated if there is no illegal activity in the emails discussing their state funded research. You can dismiss it as conspiracy all you want, doesn't change the laws and procedures NOAA understands and agreed to.
>>7917375
We are at the epoch of the Holocene. We know very little about how climate changes. As I've already stated, being in the epoch of the Holocene, it is very possibly to see a few more warmer years. Climate doesn't just suddenly switch, it is extremely complicated and humans will likely never understand it completely.
>>7917446
>one solar company
Many more than one my friend. And that one happened to cost US taxpayers over a half a billion dollars. Just one.
>>7917447
>1.2C
>small
And now the models predicting 3c are failing. Oh, let's just revise that again, or we can go back and selectively choose temperature data to fit our models. Because science.
>>7917375
>what study was rushed
The same NOAA study that was incorrect in disputing the hiatus in warming, which a whistle-blower said was rushed, and which was proven completely false about a month afterward. The same one related to leaked emails and the investigation into NOAA
>>7917544
>You have blind trust for these pure super smart scientists who just published an incorrect study that was rushed, possibly for political reasons.
Uh. Are you just assuming they're guilty now?
>They cannot be criminally charged or incriminated if there is no illegal activity in the emails
It's not the courts they're worried about. It's the media.
Again, did you completely sleep through climategate? This isn't some abstract fear, this has already happened.
Also, technically NOAA hasn't been legally forced to hand over the emails. they've been THREATENED with being legally forced.
Also also, give the "crimes" they're being accused of are basically unconnected to those emails (and are completely incoherent), you're reaching pretty damn far to justify what's pretty clearly a MAJOR abuse of political power.
>The same NOAA study that was incorrect in disputing the hiatus in warming,
a) I've not seen anything that strongly shows that they were wrong.
b) Being wrong isn't evidence of fraud.
>which a whistle-blower said was rushed
The completely anonymous whistle-blower that appeared as a source in a single, fairly biased news article.
Yeah, I don't think they exist.
>and which was proven completely false about a month afterward.
Link? And again, being wrong isn't fraud.
>>7913550
We may have the technology in 50 years to do it, but for now it's just leftist propaganda.
>>7915358
How about satellite data ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
>>7918010
>We may have the technology in 50 years to do it,
To do what?
>but for now it's just leftist propaganda.
Don't go projecting your broken politics onto the rest of the world.
>>7915342
>What exactly about climatology is non-testable?
Where's your control Earth?
Climate change is a Jewish invention that is used as an excuse to take money from white people and give it to brown people.
If you don't see this, you are probably also the type who thinks that niggers are people.
>>7918022
What? Is this bait?
Walk me through your logic, how am I giving a single dime to brown people?
>>7918014
>To do what?
man made climate change
>>7918042
There are 7000000000 people walking around eating and burning stuff, and you're just going to blindly assume that has no impact?
>>7918029
okay, here's a challenge for you.
Take two plastic domes, and put a chunk of ice in each one.
Increase atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm in one of these domes. See how long it takes the ice to melt. This is literally all you need to do. Spoiler: the additional CO2 doesn't make any difference.
>>7918024
>Walk me through your logic, how am I giving a single dime to brown people?
White countries pay carbon taxes. Brown countries receive carbon credits. The whole thing is a socialist cash grab designed by globalists.
>>7918047
Even if it does, what should be done about it?
We can't possibly kill that many people without making the problem worse with nuclear warfare or whatever, and people are not going to stop burning fossil fuels for energy.
I don't know why or how global warming ever became a political or ideological issue.
>>7918069
Great answer. Fact is, these schemes have been seriously proposed by globalists who dislike white people and who want them to disappear.
>>7913550
Yeah, but I don't care.
>>7918070
>We can't possibly kill that many people
We don't need to.
>people are not going to stop burning fossil fuels for energy.
Yes they are. We just need to make them more directly invested in the state of the climate. "The tragedy of the commons" is not a new struggle.
>I don't know why or how global warming ever became a political or ideological issue.
Because energy companies bought politicians to try to delay action against themselves, and to limit their responsibility once people do start to turn on them.
>Even if it does, what should be done about it?
Widespread education, particularly among women, to drop birth rates.
Plugging of several major energy leaks, such as shitty insulation.
Increased electrification of industry.
Shutdown of brown coal burning, because fuck that shit.
Increasing roll-out of wind and solar, supported by hydro, nuclear(?) and geothermal.
Basically, stop having so many kids and stop digging up so much carbon.
>>7916077
>False. Models are the result of that fact, not the proof.
You don't know what you're talking about. The models are designed to be predictive, they're just designed extremely poorly.
They don't include the Sun, the wind, ocean oscillations, milankovitch cycles, and more. They only include, CO2, water vapour and clouds.
That's a comically incomplete picture of the climate.
So, it should come as no surprise to you that all the predictions made using them were flat out wrong.
>>7917544
>All emails would be public record in any state agency.
Wrong, there are several exemptions to FOIA requests. The regulatory body which oversees the FOIA ruled that internal exchange of views between academics and researchers is exempt.
>The emails were subpoenaed, and NOAA withheld emails.
Good. Smith is an idiot.
>You have blind trust for these pure super smart scientists who just published an incorrect study that was rushed, possibly for political reasons.
I have blind trust for peer-reviewed research? No, idiot, that's not how it works. You have blind trust in the idiot blogs that told you the study is wrong and rushed for political reasons with no evidence. That is blind trust. You have blind trust they are wrong because you want it to be true. You are no different from someone who denies evolution, vaccines, GMOs, the earth being round. They say the exact same thing. That is who you associate with when you use such stupid "arguments". Not only that, but you're a fucking hypocrite for accusing scientists of working for political reasons when you are only denying the science for political reasons. You are the one politicizing the issue, so fuck off.
>We know very little about how climate changes.
Don't project your ignorance onto others.
>As I've already stated, being in the epoch of the Holocene, it is very possibly to see a few more warmer years.
It's possible for climatologists to be wrong about everything. It's possible that in the next few years global temps are going to drop, disproving AGW. That doesn't mean it will happen. Fuck you're dense.
>1.2C
Where are you getting these numbers?
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html
>The same NOAA study that was incorrect in disputing the hiatus in warming, which a whistle-blower said was rushed, and which was proven completely false about a month afterward.
You have a very active imagination.
>>7916143
Your graph shows that CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around.
And here's a bigger window for you.
>>7918144
Are we just ignoring that there are clear and obvious causative mechanisms for CO2 to cause warming?
>>7918140
>You don't know what you're talking about. The models are designed to be predictive, they're just designed extremely poorly.
Usually when you reply to someone's post and quote them, your response should have something to do with what you're replying to, which is the fact that models are not "the proof" of how CO2 affects the climate.
>They don't include the Sun, the wind, ocean oscillations, milankovitch cycles, and more.
You don't know what you're talking about. Sources of natural variation are parameters in climate models in addition to GHG emissions that must be input for the model to predict anything. Stop pretending to know anything about climatology.
>So, it should come as no surprise to you that all the predictions made using them were flat out wrong.
They're all so flat out wrong that we've been accurately predicting global surface temps for decades. Nice meme graph.
>>7918144
>Your graph shows that CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around.
Wow, how many times am I going to have to explain elementary paleoclimatology to idiots like you on /sci/? Interglacial periods (the warm periods in between ice ages you can see on the graph) begin with warming from Earth's orbital eccentricity, meaning Earth's tilt and orbit lead to more light from the sun hitting it. This warming is then amplified by the feedback loop between CO2, water vapor, and warming. When the Earth starts to warm the Earth's oceans evaporate more. This results in more water vapor and CO2 in the air, which act as greenhouse gases, further warming the earth and further evaporating the oceans. This is why you see these fast spike in temperature at the beginning of the interglacial, and this is why you see CO2 following temperature.
Higher temperature -> more CO2 -> higher temperature -> ...
The same exact mechanism explains current warming. The only difference is that Earth's current orbital eccentricity is actually causing LESS light to reach Earth. We are in the cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycle, yet we are still warming. This is because instead of warming from orbital eccentricity triggering the feedback loop, warming from manmade CO2 is triggering it. But you didn't know that, because you have not taken the time to study basic climatology before you decided you knew enough to criticize it with such puerile arguments as HURR SEE DE CO2 FOLLOWED DE TEMPERTUR SO IT AIN'T CAUSING THE TEMPERTUR TA RISE DURR
>The consensus is based off published work which is highly political
>CO2 apparently doesn't have as drastic effect as previously thought
>Legitimacy issues with scientists who adjust data but don't explain why the change or keep both data up.
At the moment no data is conclusive enough to warrant on one side being right.
>>7918232
Let me translate from denierspeak
>The consensus is based off published work which is highly political
"I disagree with science for political reasons, therefore that science is political"
>CO2 apparently doesn't have as drastic effect as previously thought
"CO2 causes the earth to warm slightly less than we thought, therefore the rapid warming that will occur is completely harmless!"
>Legitimacy issues with scientists who adjust data but don't explain why the change or keep both data up.
"If I don't read the explanation it doesn't exist."
>At the moment no data is conclusive enough to warrant on one side being right.
"I know better than climatologists, because my feelings tell me they're wrong."
>>7918140
>Average of 102 IPCC CHIMP-5 Climate Models
That's retarded. Why the hell would you average together hundreds of different models with different assumptions?
>They don't include the Sun, the wind, ocean oscillations, milankovitch cycles, and more.
Yes they do. Why wouldn't they?
>>7918144
>Your graph shows that CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around.
In the past, CO2 wasn't the primary driver of climatic changes. Now it is.
Jesus, where are you getting these dead-horse arguments?
>>7918232
>The consensus is based off published work which is highly political
The work is a description of the observed facts. The only reason it's seen as political is that outright denial of reality has become a common political position.
>CO2 apparently doesn't have as drastic effect as previously thought
No. I've not seen any clear shift down in known value for that.
>Legitimacy issues with scientists who adjust data but don't explain why the change or keep both data up.
Bull-fucking-shit. The "legitimacy issues" are entirely fictional, and pushed by people with a direct financial stake in discrediting climatology. And the adjustments get pages upon pages of justification, which are then passed around for peer-review before being published.
>At the moment no data is conclusive enough to warrant on one side being right.
We've had a strong conclusion for more than twenty years.
>>7915666
Actually, working in geology (which as this stage is a fucking horrible degree to have) we're developing methods of CO2 and greenhouse reduction in atmosphere as well as curbing emissions.
One day they'll be funded by more than a few universities, but at least the theory will be ready for testing.
You don't want to "go green" for the climate.
You want to go green so you can have cool rivers to fish in, beneath mines full of fish.
You want to go green, so having a factory set up somewhere isn't a nightmare scaring the land around it for 20-50 years after it shuts down.
>this thread
i legitimately can't tell who is trolling, who is being satirical and who is being genuine anymore
thanks poe
>>7915403
>YouTube
Are you serious
Is it backed by citations or something?
>>7913973
>I'm sure the scientific community generally agrees on the geocentric theory of the universe
>>7918178
BLOWN
LOWN
OWN
WN
N
THE
HE
E
FUCK
UCK
CK
K
OUT
UT
T
