Hello /sci/entist's
What are your thoughts on climate change? And what would be the most effective way to reverse it.
> climate change meme
>>>/x/
>Thoughts on Climate Change
There's no way the human race is going to survive it. We fucked up, and we will pay for our hubris with blood.
>Best way to combat it.
Voluntary extinction. I've already taken the first step and sterilized myself.
>>7936203
Earth will one day be like Venus, the nightmare scenario of a totally unchecked runaway greenhouse effect
>>7936382
kek
>>7936856
Except that's not possible of happening due escape velocities and incoming solar radiation. No ionosphere on Venus is what did it in more than it's carbon dioxide - all evaporated water just broke down in the upper strata of it's atmosphere into constituent hydrogen and atomic oxygen. Not possible on Earth.
>>7936835
>There's no way the human race is going to survive it
Oh grow up, seriously. We've seen temperatures hit GLOBAL averages of 23 degree Celsius in the PETM, and that was with zero ice caps or tundra. The biogenic regulators of global homeostasis have been well studied, they're in place to buffer any changes we'll see. Worst case scenario is that the Tropics become uninhabitable, which may be a good thing considering the people who live there.
>>7936876
It would be great if you actually knew what you were talking about
>>7936876
Venus has an induced magnetic ionosphere you stupid fucking idiot.
inb4 shitstorm
it's gonna be /pol/ tinfoil and falseflagging predictions of doom all the way down...
this is how the world ends; not with a bang, but with a shitpost
>>7936873
>Alarmists lol !!!! Vote Bush!! I work for Shell!!!
well this thread went to shit fast
>Thoughts
Climate change is real
Reducing CO2 emissions is impossible without China, India, Brazil etc on board
Tax the fuck out of fossil fuels companies
Inject all that revenue into renewables R&D
>Problem solved
>>7937206
the thing about taxing fuel companies is they pass the taxes on to customers
so fuel prices would go up substantially
things like plane tickets would skyrocket
getting goods shipped around the world would become harder
trade would slow
parts needed to make solar/wind etc wouldnt be feasible to buy making R&D more of a waste of money
Less is more when it comes to taxing fossil fuel companies
t. oil shit :^)
>>7936974
> madpost
:^)
Pretty easy to see that climate change is real, whether or not humans come into play. Also think human-created i.e. human-accelerated climate change is very much a real thing that is in full effect right now. At this point we're pretty fucked and that's due to greed in all corners of society. Take a snapshot right now. In 50-100 years the change will be drastic.
>>7937206
>Reducing CO2 emissions is impossible without China, India, Brazil etc on board
Obviously false. Emissions reductions in one place are possible without waiting for everyone else to already be doing better. Why would you assume the only the worst polluter can improve?
Also, China is already on board.
>Tax the fuck out of fossil fuels companies
>Inject all that revenue into renewables R&D
Yes.
>>7937201
>well this thread went to shit fast
They always do.
I don't know whose fault it is.
Could be us, since we have been burning shit, heating up the atmosphere and generally fucking the planet over over a century.
But it could also be the sun spiking, since a minuscule change in its behavior can change a whole lot for our small planet.
Anyway, I'd just wish people would treat the planet and environment better.
>>7938288
Solar activity is low and orbital eccentricity indicates we should be cooling.
> climate change
It's $CURRENT_YEAR and there are still people believe this meme?
>>7938311
Well, blame the liburls for making it look like it was apocalypse 2.0
>>7936203
I think there are many things that we're simultaneously doing to the environment around the globe that the earth does not have the time to compensate for. As far as what we should be doing is nothing, but a different type of nothing, one in which we scale down our efforts to "fix" things. Every time we try to fix something we create a new problem.
Hi, nice man from the oil industry here. It's cool, we can keep pumping unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere forever and it will never affect anything. You believe me, don't you? Why would i lie? Don't believe all that sciencey mumbo jumbo, they're just trying to control your lives. I nor the people i work for would ever do anything like that.
>>7938321
>Fixing
>Climate religion
Yes, this needs fixing right away. AGW climate priests need to be held accountable when their prophecies fail, not reinforced with more dogma. Their flock enabling a new age dark ages is growing into a force to be reckoned with.
My thoughts are that we need to keep the topic in the spotlight, and constantly advise our peers on denialist tactics and fallacies, because the doubt created from the denialist echo chamber is a serious hindrance to the progress of reducing our emissions.
I live in Canada where 40% of the population doesn't think man made global warming is a threat/thing, and it causes a lot of arguments. The science is there, but the common masses don't understand it, so there needs to be a media push to continuously educate, otherwise we will be too slow in reforming our energy sectors.
>>7938334
Plants will get all the CO2 they need now. Thank you oil man.
>>7938472
You can't expect Canadians to care about global warming when it's so cold here all the time. The science might be right but people in general will not care about anything that doesn't directly affect them. It's the Inverse Square Law of society.
>>7938502
Man it's not even that cold here. People just dont give a fuck because oil is like our biggest economic driver and they care more about paying off their debts than long term habitat health. 93% of canadians are in debt, including myself
It's funny that climate change, regardless of what about it is or isn't accurate, has buried equally critical problems like soil deterioration, freshwater depletion and pollution which are gonna fuck us up just as hard if not worse.
>>7938526
I always thought "climate change" referred to all of that or else they would call it "temperature change"
>>7936203
No need to reverse it.
But we should stop burning so much fossil fuels
Not because of the CO2 but because of all those particulates
We'll cool down eventually
>>7938530
The things I listed are more a consequence of overpopulation and wasteful/irresponsible use. Human settlements have been growing and using up available resources, often to the point of collapse, since cities first appeared. It really isn't dependent on climate trends, although rapid changes in climate can accelerate the failure of unsustainable systems. Point is they would've failed eventually anyway because of self-destructive practices.
There's a sort of redundancy in my explanation because unrestricted population growth is in itself a wasteful and irresponsible policy. I know people love to argue that anything can be solved with 'technology' or rationing but the real question is why should we allow developments that lead to the necessity of such measures? What we're doing is incredibly dangerous, we're nowhere near the point of being able to create some kind of a safe equilibrium where our current material needs won't cause irreversible damage to the environment as a whole that can backfire and harm us.
Where does all that CO come from?
>>7938631
FUKUSHIMA XDDDDD HANG ABE RADIATION OH NOOOOOO
I believe climate change to be true. What I don't understand is, why some people go from zero to thousand when some concern is published. Yes, it is a problem and no, there is no end of the world coming. There are some hacks to get around the problem, they however are expensive and not the first choice. Best at the time would seem be to lower CO_2 in atmosphere.
One of these hacks is spraying nontoxic titanium-dioxide on stratosphere to reflect sun radiation away from the earth. This can be done in one (changing) area, yet it would affect the global average. One plan is to use high altitude balloons. It can be controlled other ways too, like stopped whenever. If there are some concerns whether this would work or not, volcanic eruption's have global cooling effect, but titanium-dioxide is better than sulfide.
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Every single climate change thread ever covered in a convenient single page with links to answers, why are these still being made they're so fucking boring.
>>7936203
Killing every heterotroph would be a step in the right direction.
>>7937258
>funpost
I reckon that we'll be able to survive with the right technologies, though in the process, much of the living organisms on the planet would probably die off and the utilization of this technology will be catastrophic to the ecosystems of the planet, and human society. Though, the damage should outweigh the long-term damage from a runaway GHG scenario.
It'll be a wonderful beginning, though a devastating farewell to all of the past.
Where not even worried as much about CO2. The main concern right now is methane.
>>7936879
It would be great if you weren't completely retarded
>>7940467
Who's we?
>>7937244
>taxing fuel companies, pass the taxes on to customers
>so fuel prices would go up substantially
>getting goods shipped around the world would become harder
>trade would slow
Thank god we have you here to explain basic high school economics to us all. I totally didn't realize taxes made stuff more expensive!!!
... Oh wait, I just remembered that that's actually the whole fucking point. You make one good more expensive so that consumers are incentivized to substitute for alternative goods (renewable energy, perhaps?). And as more and more investment goes towards these other energy sources, they get cheaper and more efficient until it's just as cheap as fossil fuels were, if not cheaper. Go educate yourself on Pareto efficiency and Pigouvian taxes before you try to talk about public economics again
>>7940021
Your solution is really to spray a bunch of chemicals in the atmosphere instead of just switching to renewable energy resources (which is a good move regardless of climate change)?
>>7940021
Yes, let's spray some DDT while we're at it.
I don't want to debate the climate change, but I'll point out the fact that the earth will imminently fail us. So research going to space instead of wasting money on stupid bullshit.
The stupidest shit I've ever heard was att that Paris Climate Wankers - Assembly: "the temperature can maximally raise x degrees..."
You can't manipulate the temperature, retards, you can agree upon lowering the CO2 emissions but not the fucking temperature!
>>7940643
No shit, it's not like scientists think we just need to turn down the global thermostat, it's a goal to strive for, by doing something like, I dunno, reducing CO2 emissions maybe? Was making the logical leap there really that difficult for you?
>>7940643
increasing temperatures and mass die offs in the third world is a desirable goal
>>7940643
>You can't manipulate the temperature, retards, you can agree upon lowering the CO2 emissions but not the fucking temperature!
What?
Anthropogenic CO2 is a major driver of temperature. So we CAN manipulate the temperature.
Can people here who think it wont be that bad explain why? I cant tell whether all the doomsday articles are being alarmist or if everyone else is in denial. When people say geoengineering wont work do they mean it couldn't work or that it doesn't currently work with the technology we currently have?
>>7940657
>reducing CO2 emissions
It's a conspiracy to restrict your fossil fuels, that could be a death sentence living in the first world in the 21st century. At minimum implying a reduction to third world standards. It's not rocket science, it's a new age religion back my mountains of propaganda. An Inquisition on deniers and everything! yay! History repeats. First as tragedy, then as farce.
>>7941644
>It's a conspiracy
Stopped reading there.
>>7938367
I don't understand why people get so defensive over the notion to reduce our toxic impact on the planet, whether or not you agree on its future effects or intensity of impact.
>>7941670
Because they're stupid.
>>7941664
>denies a conspiracy theory
>on a conspiracy theory website
>>7937206
>Inject all that revenue into renewables R&D
Administration and management will fuck it up... they fuck everything up.
>>7938286
>China is already on board.
Yes... but not really. Their cities demand a huge amount of power that coal can readily supply. The government is trying their best to old the cuntry together. I don't know the numbers but I read in a science mag china article that some plants have scrubbers but most are just cylinder bore stacks shitting tonnes and tonnes of pollutants into the air. If I had to guess.... plants near Bejing, Harbin, and Dalian. They tried to clean up for the Olympics hard, They still maintain the scrubbers but I doubt that will last for long.
I worked in Harbin for a year and I wore a 3M respirator instead of the 3M masks... everyone looked at me funny but It wasn't worth the risk. I replaced my filters every week (I only went outside to work and go from store to store.). Which is incredibly frequent. There were children in hospitals coughing copious amounts of phlegm and when we scanned for xray or blood tests. It wasn't uncommon to find COPD, asthma, inflamed lining, and general low lung function due to ozone (I'm assuming). Hell, there were 20 something cases of lymphoma and lung cancer in kids.
It scares people to see this happen and being a foreigner I got asked a lot of questions as what they can do. I eventually did get a visit from a constable asking what I was telling them. It was super fucked up. Either way, there is a huge problem but the Chinese people are becoming increasingly aware and wanting to work with the environment. There was even a few recycling places in Dalian. They weren't packed but the fact Chinese people even give a shit is saying something.
China isn't on board yet, but they will forced to be soon enough.
Also... if you ever go to China, drink only from boiled water and never drink the soup water. Steamed dumplings, duck, pig, plants, and bbq is pretty much all I ate. Expats had soup and were shitting out their lungs by dinner.
>>7941755
>drink from boiled water
I meant BOTTLED water.
>>7936203
>reverse it
you mean back to the ice age?
that will happen soon enough.
>>7936203
>ctrl+f nuclear
>0 results
Nuclear is the only solution faggots why are none of you discussing it
>>7941576
Anyone?
>>7941767
>our current methods are dirtying the environment
>let's dump toxic waste instead
>>7941768
I think many of us do think it can be pretty bad. I think it's definatly something serious.
>>7941769
>dump
i think you mean bury
>>7941767
because nuclear meltdowns are a much more catastrophic event than the slow change of climate.
Of course humans are much more scared and cautious of the more catastrophic end scenario
>>7941769
The rate and amount of "dirty" is significantly less with nuclear.
I agree with >>7941767
CANDU reactors can take a variety of fuels, it's the slut of the nuclear world. With proper government regulation and inspections where people actually listen to people who get paid to say what is dangerous.... then we should have a lot more time to find new power resources.
Of all the nuclear accidents I know of, are from negligence on behalf of government, or corporation. Chernobyl maybe not but I don't know what led up to the meltdown. Fukushima, 1k island, FP, Germany, and the Bruce were all preventable if the people incharge actually listened to the people who were paid to prevent accidents.
Nuclear is like a power tool, you have to know how to use it and becareful. If you do, your job becomes a lot easier. And fuck the argument of radioation.... Coal is soooo much worse. It's just not as concentrated but the amount released is also more then concentrated fuel.
Spent rods, pellets, and sheets are easier to contain then ozone, and air born compounds.
also... Bernie for Pres.
>>7941783
Meltdown isn't responsible for climate change.
You should be saying, "Nuclear meltdown are much more catastrophic then the pollutants of fossil fuels and GHG's." Which I'm %80 certain is wrong.
Climate change is slow but radiation isn't changing the climate AFAIK, BUT! as for pollution directly affecting the warming, Nuclear is immune to critisizm.
>>7941576
>I cant tell whether all the doomsday articles are being alarmist or if everyone else is in denial.
It's reasonable to be alarmed about alarming things.
Right now the media's doing a terrible job of presenting GW, (either ignoring it or treating it like a Hollywood apocalypse), but in the long term shit's going to get pretty bad if we don't change course.
>When people say geoengineering wont work do they mean it couldn't work or that it doesn't currently work with the technology we currently have?
It definitely could work, but to have a significant effect it be an enormous, expensive project. It may also require some new technologies as well.
Not contributing to the problem is vastly cheaper and more effective than trying to fix it after the fact.
>>7941755
>Yes... but not really
That's all that Australia or the USA are doing.
>general low lung function due to ozone (I'm assuming).
I'd guess NO2 as well. It's a major combustion byproduct (via NO) and it fucks up lungs.
>>7941767
Nuclear power is a great idea, if you actually trust the regulators and the operators to do their jobs properly.
I'm sure not campaigning for it here in Australia.
>>7941794
>Chernobyl maybe not but I don't know what led up to the meltdown.
Government ignoring the warnings from the reactor designer, operated outside safe reaction conditions.
>>7941561
>CO2 is a major driver of temperature
There's some observable climate change in that field of research.
Anyone who has been tracking the scientific journals on climate science has observed over many years that the supposedly expected temperature increase from CO2 has steadily been decreasing over the years. This means that all the assumptions and claims made by the IPCC in the past were based on hype and totally inaccurate results.
If the decrease in the projected temperature rise from CO2 will continue on its present trend, by 2025 the warming ascribed to CO2 will be close to zero. We can thus expect that the quality of the forecasts will increase to the point where they will actually reflect reality.
>>7940524
>>7940643
>Your solution is really to spray a bunch of chemicals in the atmosphere instead of just switching to renewable energy resources
>There are some hacks to get around the problem, they however are expensive and not the first choice. Best at the time would seem be to lower CO_2 in atmosphere.
So, no that was not my solution. That was my worst case scenario backup plan. Taking human stupidity and greediness into account, it is good to have the plan-B.
>the earth will imminently fail us.
It doesn't have to. Have a faith in progress. There are many challenges for sure, but they all are solvable if mankind commits to solutions. I mean one way or the other there is going to be solution, how much suffering and how many humans are left standing, is the other question.
>You can't manipulate the temperature, retards,
I thought this whole circus existed because temperature was manipulated in the first place.
>>7942320
>temperature was manipulated
only the data, part of the circus
>>7936873
>Thinking global warming means the end of the world
If you don't even understand what the claim is, why are you talking about it?
>>7937244
>so fuel prices would go up substantially
>implying that's not the point
>>7942343
So.. do you also think that global cooling effect of volcanic eruption is a lie?
Do you disagree with amount of carbon dioxide in air? Specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide is known, so it is pure math to figure out the increase in heat energy. Or maybe you aren't math believer! Please, enlighten me and tell me why global warming is not true. Or was the "data is manipulated" all you got?
>>7942343
What data has been manipulated?
>>7941783
A meltdown just means the core was damaged and is overheating.
Modern facilities have many safety measures in place and Fukushima is proof that they work even in the middle of a huge disaster.
>>7942343
There you go! You can check the science yourself.
[eqn] T = \sqrt[4]{ \frac{ S(1 - A) }{ 4 \varepsilon \sigma } } [/eqn]
S = solar energy received by the planet (W/m2),
A = albedo, which is the fraction of S that is reflected back into space by snow, ice, sulphate aerosols, etc,
ε = emissivity, which is the fraction of heat energy emitted from the surface that escapes into space, and
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.6704 x 10-8 W/m2/K4).
Reverse it? Replant the Amazonl. Replant forests. Restore the oxygen levels within our atmosphere.,
As for the Ocean and the whole calthrate gun, methane bubbles spewing out of the ocean floor, well, I'd suggested magma to a team working on the issue, but I guess those guys didn't like my idea about bad ass titanium hose submarines.
Yeah, we really need to work on the whole calthrate gun issue. Someone start a thread.
>>7942361
Hard to believe this bullshit has this much traction even on /sci/. I guess 4chan is just completely overrun by /pol/ tier brainwashing anymore.
Or maybe it's just late and I've been fighting ignorance all day. IT NEVER STOPS! Wave after wave after wave, and every new generation that comes up is just another blank slate ready to get fooled again. Nothing we learn matters. Man I'm feeling cynical.
Honestly, I don't think humanity is going to pull it's collective head out of it's ass in time, and we're going to snuff out, with our head still stuck up our ass. What a tragedy.
Wish I could just get high sometimes, but I don't get high anymore, I have to see what's there. It's hard to look at, the ugliness.
>>7942381
There was no reasoning there what so ever. You say that global warming is bullshit, yet you are reluctant to offer any kind of argument to support your claims.
The thing is, amount of heat energy trapped by atmosphere will rise if we add substance that absorbs heat energy into the atmosphere. I'm still waiting which part you don't believe and why. Everything is proven and logic is sound.
>>7942381
>avoids addressing points someone made
>calls people brainwashed
>>7942403
Damn, I was all set to bust your balls.
>>7942403
Oh, I thought you were the guy he was replying to.
It's hard to tell because calling you brainwashed is what they typically go to once they exhaust their "the data is fake" argument.
>>7942406
Well you get out there and kick ass then. I watch these mental midgets lob the slowest softballs sometimes and then people just fail to smash them out of the park. Come on, guys. Don't be fooled by bullshit "self confidence". It's all built on insecurity. You know better.
>>7941767
Scale, dude. We'd have to build so many goddamn plants to make up for fossil fuels that we'd risk running out of uranium.
>>7942470
Not really. If you're willing to be creative there's enough nuclear fuel to last us a very long time.
>>7942285
anyone want to comment on this? I'm not educated enought to do so but this seems interesting
>>7936876
>Tropics become uninhabitable, which may be a good thing considering the people who live there.
They're going to migrate.
>>7942411
>fall for shilling
>call others "mental midgets"
embarrassing
It's real yo! I totally saw this smart guy say it on TV.
>>7942380
This controls the ozone and CO2 as for Methane and N2, not so much.
The cattle industry is actually pretty bad regarding CH4. All the focus has been on CO2 and Ozone. Which are easily controlled if everyone actually wanted to.
>>7942381
Good plan, go get high and stay off /sci/. you're just shit posting anyway. If you're so miserable just kill yourself and stop using our air.
You sound like my ex-gf.
>>7942470
CANDU/CANDU/CANDU/CANDU
>>7942782
You don't have to be very creative either. Suppliment with renewables and everything will be fine. Nuclear = Baseload and big brother elon will think of something more reliable then his power wall. We will be fine.
>>7942881
There is more than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's not as terrifying as everyone makes it out to be. The dangers lie in the combination of gases that each have their own unique properties. The most prominent ones are CH4, N2O, O3, and (imo the most dangerous) CFC's aka chlorofluorocarbons. The IPCC old results were inconclusive but published anyway. Hype happened after the fact. The combination of gases, (some I didn't even mention.) Together have an effect, kinda like these molecules are holding hands together chanting "Together we rise, divided we fall" but they were not taken into consideration because it was mostly exhaust from transport and industry that was being looked at, just CO2.
Plants and Ice are the best controls for CO2, China has some aluminum plate thing that traps it too. Idk what it's called but that works. We can control CO2, if governments and people cooperate. It's the other gases like CH4 and N2O that are more serious, imo because they are not as frequently brought to the public's attention. They are just as much to blame as CO2 and more difficult to control.
All talking in concentration of course.
>>7943071
As does the data.
>>7941966
>That's all that Australia or the USA are doing
Well knock me down and buttfuck me, that isn't enough.
If only a few plants in Aus and US are using scrubbers for public relations then it's just greed that is the issue here. Enviromental responsibility should have a weight in industry. Why can't those big corps afford it? preeeety sure they can. I'm also ssure the exposure isn't as bad in those countries, china has power plants in cities and possibly more. More people, more coal, right?
>I'd guess NO2 as well. It's a major combustion byproduct (via NO) and it fucks up lungs.
Confirmed for fucked up lungs.
NO2? idk much about that, I was just a prac.RN. I just saw the damage from the exposure. I felt so thankful that I was born in a place where I don't breathe that shit in.
They are slowly changing tho, it would change faster if the government wasn't a fucking dictatorship or w/e they call it.
>>7943177
>Good plan, go get high and stay off /sci/. you're just shit posting anyway. If you're so miserable just kill yourself and stop using our air. You sound like my ex-gf.
What, someone can't have cynical moment? Sometimes things look pretty bleak for humanity. Doesn't mean that a negative future is all I can see.
I don't know why you would tell someone to kill themselves, especially someone who's basically agreeing with you. Maybe you can enlighten me on your reasoning there.
>>7942285
>>7942881
Massive cherrypicking of studies, and hides the large uncertainty in contrarian studies. There were way more than 5 studies estimating sensitivity between 2000 and 2005, yet that is all this graph shows. And the lower estimates are from well known badly designed studies such as Schwartz 2012 and Lewis 2013.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2136.html
so how dramatically will it effect society and humanity in general?
>>7943177
i luv science xD
Every 10 seconds 4 acres of our forests're being demolished. Reverse that fucking process if you want a planet which's viable to our survival as well as the survival of the millions of other beautiful creatures which Inhabit this beautiful planet alongside us.
>>7943464
[citation needed]
>>7943431
Actual climate change? Global warming would be a good thing in many ways. If sea levels rose even a few meters all that lands owned for centuries by the elites would be underwater and allow new people, with new ideas to capitalize on their new ocean front holdings.
Carbon trade schemes? Tremendously regardless of the climate. It's basically a pseudo crypto fossil fuel trading scheme with a dash of fascism since goobermint and crony capitalism is involved.
>>7943468
Why are you Americans so delusional?
>>7943260
>Reasoning
A reason? I don't need a reason. I'm white. I'm an American with rights.
>>7943473
He is being sarcastic. May I see your visitors pass? You seem new here.
>>7943488
Yeah I guess you have a point.
>>7943510
>he's just pretending to be retarded xddd
no, he's some /x/ cross-shitposter
>>7943473
Imma north America with emphasis on the north part. It's reality, also, our economy and national vitality relies heavily on fossil fuels, they are already taxing us into poverty and communism. A global hydro carbon tax? No thanks. I want warming and if it can be man made all the better.
>>7943513
Is this true?
Huh... I guess. Shame. :(
>>7943521
You must be from Alberta, judging by the retarded shit spewing from your head.
Or just a redneck from Ontario.
>>7943431
any other opinions on this?
>>7942285
>>7936203
>>7942881
>>7943292
> well known 'badly designed' studies such as Schwartz 2012
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
> Look at Michael "Broken Hockey Stick" Mann discussing statistics to 'debunk' Schwartz.
> Laughter ensues.
> http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf
> This is NOT a response to Schwartz 2012, but Schwartz 2007
> You've got to be more careful when quoting SimpletonPseudoScience
> Why didn't you mention this response to Mann and his buddies?
* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
>>7943870
>>7942285
>>7936203
>>7942881
>>7943292
>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2136.html
Oh yeah, great paper. Heck it follows you theme of conflating data with "adjusted" data:
>>7943177
>>>7943071
>As does the HEAVILY TAMPERED data.
ftfy
This sad joke of a paper is not so much a study of climate sensitivity as it is of data tampering to get the desired result. Look at that "adjusting":
>One of those adjustments is to add +0.3 W/m2 to the figures used for model aerosol forcing to bring the estimated model aerosol forcing into line with the AR5 best estimate of -0.9 W/m2. He notes that the study’s main results are very sensitive to the magnitude of this adjustment.
>If it were removed, the estimated mean TCR would increase by 0.7°C. If it were increased by 0.15 W/m2, presumably the mean TCR estimate of 1.7°C would fall to 1.35°C – in line with the Otto et al (2013) estimate. Now, so far as I know, model aerosol forcing values are generally for the change from the 1850s, or thereabouts, to ~2000, not – as is the AR5 estimate – for the change from 1750. Since the AR5 aerosol forcing best estimate for the 1850s was -0.19 W/m2, the adjustment required to bring the aerosol forcing estimates for the models into line with the AR5 best estimate is ~0.49 W/m2, not ~0.3 W/m2. On the face of it, using that adjustment would bring Shindell’s TCR estimate down to around 1.26°C.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.26 C
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/10/does-inhomogeneous-forcing-and-transient-climate-sensitivity-by-drew-shindell-make-sense/
> nb4 Evil Denier on Evil Denier Site
Your problem, not mine.
>>7943874
>>7943292
>>7942285
>>7936203
>>7942881
>Massive cherrypicking of studies
> cherrypicking == studies that don't adhere to warmist dogma
Many papers describing low climate sensitivity
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye
Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
>>7943880
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
>Massive cherrypicking of studies
> cherrypicking == studies that don't adhere to warmist dogma
More papers describing low climate sensitivity
Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (PDF)
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C
Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley
Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C
>>7943884
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Even more papers describing low climate sensitivity.
Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content (PDF)
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C
Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters
Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C
A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren
Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C
>>7943888
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Still more papers describing low climate sensitivity.
An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis
Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C
The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila
Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C
Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.
Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °
A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle
Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °
>>7943895
>>7942285
>>7936203
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
> DEBUNKED: Libardoni and Forest (2013)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study (actually a corrigendum to a study originally published in 2011) uses an informative ‘expert’ prior distribution for ECS and an inappropriate uniform prior distribution for ocean heat uptake efficiency (the square root of ocean effective diffusivity, Kv). Use of such prior distributions will have biased, most probably upwards, the study’s ECS estimate. Using one surface temperature dataset, Libardoni and Forest find ECS to be lower,Kvto be completely unconstrained, and aerosol forcing to be more negative, than the other two datasets are used. Yet with green-house gas forcing being offset to a greater extent by negative aerosol cooling and more heat being absorbed by the ocean, energy conservation implies that ECS would need to be significantly higher to match the twentieth-century rise in global temperatures, not lower. Since the Libardoni and Forest results thereby defy conservation of energy, they should be discounted. Although various errors pointed out in Lewis (2013) were addressed in this corrigendum, at least one was incorrectly dealt with, and the unsatisfactory way surface temperature data was used (see Lewis, 2013) was not altered, which may account for these problems.
>>7943901
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
> DEBUNKED: Lin et al. (2010)
Although this study is dealt is really an energy budget study that uses numerical solutions of an energy balance model. The recent TOA imbalance is derived from an outdated AOGCM-derived Earth system heat uptake/TOA radiative imbalance estimate (Hansen et al. 2005) of 0.85 W/m, taken as applying over the final decade of the 1885–2005 period used. That heat uptake is twice as high as the best estimate per AR5 over the same decade. Moreover, no allowance is made for heat inflow into the ocean at the start of the 120-year period. The method and model used, in particular the treatment of heat transport to the deep ocean, is difficult to follow and appears non-standard. In view of the greatly excessive system heat uptake estimate used and the questionable methodology, it is difficult to regard the results of this study as constituting a realistic estimate of ECS. The IPCC authors evidently also had doubts about this study’s ECS estimate; its range is marked as being incomplete at both high and low ends.
>>7943905
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
>DEBUNKED: Olson et al. (2012)
This model–observation comparison Bayesian study estimates ECS, ocean effective diffusivity and an aerosol-forcing scaling factor, using only global temperatures and a wide uniform prior on the aerosol-forcing scaling factor. That is an unsatisfactory method. Since greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing histories are extremely closely correlated (negatively), one can obtain a good match to historical global temperatures with a wide range of suitable combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing strength. That problem results in the study’s estimated PDF for ECS being almost unconstrained when using uniform prior distributions, which biases its ECS estimate upwards. The use of 0–700-m ocean, as well as surface, temperature changes provides only a very weak constraint on what ECS–aerosol-forcing combinations are feasible. Ozone forcing, which is significantly positive, was omitted: that can be expected to have increased the estimate of ECS substantially. Given all these problems, the Olson et al. instrumental ECS estimate cannot be regarded as realistic. Olson’s PDF and range for ECS shown under combination estimates is dominated by a non-uniform prior distribution for ECS that matches high AR4-era estimates for ECS, including from AOGCMs, as represented in Knutti and Hegerl (2008). Since the study’s combination ECS estimate is dominated by an initial distribution based on AR4-era ECS estimates, it should not have been treated in AR5 as if it were an independent observationally-based estimate. The Olson et al. combination estimate for ECS should therefore be disregarded.
>>7943908
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
>DEBUNKED: Schwartz (2012)
>Schwartz flip-flopped into an alarmist, probably to retain his funding.
This study derived ECS from changes up to 2009 in observed global surface and 0–700-m ocean layer temperatures, and changes in forcing based on forcing histories used in historical model simulations. Two methods were used. One was zero-intercept regression of temperature change on forcing minus heating rate, fitted to post-1964 data. Whilst this approach appears reasonable in principle, subject to the forcing and OHC history estimates being realistic, the regressions are very noisy. No allowance was made for heat inflow into the ocean in the late nineteenth century (estimated in Gregory et al. 2002, to be non-negligible); that can be expected to have biased upwards its estimate of ECS slightly. For two of the six forcing datasets used, the regressions did not explain any of the variance in the temperature data – their R values were negative. ECS best estimates derived from the other four forcing datasets varied between 1.1 C and 2.6 C.The mean R value for their regressions approached a value of 0.5. The second method derived ECS by combining the results of similar regressions (but without deducting the heating rate from forcing) with an observationally-estimated heat uptake coefficient. These regressions gave significantly higher R values.
>>7943913
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
CONTINUED
>DEBUNKED: Schwartz (2012)
The second method gave similar results for the four forcing datasets for which the first method provided a valid estimate of ECS, with an overall range (allowing for regression uncertainty) of 1.07–3.0 C. A fifth forcing dataset, which gave a positive R only for the regression in which the heating rate was not deducted, gave an ECS estimate using this method of 4.9±1.2 C. That accounts for the ECS range for this study given in Box 12, Figure 1 of AR5 extending up to 6.1 C. The regression R for this forcing dataset was low (0.29) and the study concluded that the forcing dataset was inconsistent with an energy balance model for which the change in net emitted irradiance at the top of the atmosphere is proportional to the increase in surface temperature. The 3.0–6.1 C segment of the ECS range given for this study in AR5 relates entirely to this one forcing dataset and, in view of the problems with it, should be regarded as carrying significantly less than the one-fifth total probability that would otherwise naturally be assigned to a part of a range that related only to one out of five datasets.
>>7943917
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
>DEBUNKED: Tomassini et al. (2007)
The Tomassini et al. model–observation comparison study involved a complex subjective Bayesian method. For ECS, a set of priors varying between a uniform prior and a deliberately informative lognormal prior with a mean of 3 C, both restricted to the range 1–10 C, were used. A very inappropriate uniform prior was employed for ocean effective diffusivity (Kv) – the square of ocean heat uptake efficiency. The choices of prior for ECS and Kv will both have biased upwards the estimate of ECS. Although the method used encompasses inverse estimation of aerosol forcing via a scaling factor, only global mean observational temperature data is used, so the inverse estimate arrived at will be unreliable. The very high (negative) correlation between the time evolution of greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings on a global scale makes it impossible robustly to distinguish between different combinations of ECS and aerosol forcing values that each satisfy the energy budget constraint. The posterior distribution for Kv is multiply peaked, which should not be the case. The trace plot of the Markov chain Monte Carlo sample used to estimate the parameters reveals instability not only as to what Kv values are favoured but also as to with what combination of ECS and (indirect) aerosol forcing. In some sections of the plot it is not obvious that the combination of Kv, ECS and aerosol forcing values is consistent with conservation-of-energy constraints. In view of all these issues the ECS estimates from this study should be discounted.
>>7943921
>>7942285
>>7942881
>>7943292
Debunking alarmist papers on climate sensitivity
> DEBUNKED: Unlabelled studies Shown in UN IPCC AR5 Box 12.1, Figure 1.
The first unlabelled study range shown in AR5 Box 12.2, Figure 1 is from Annan and Hargreaves (2006), which is based on a combination of estimates from a last glacial maximum palaeoclimate study and from a study based on the response to volcanic eruptions, using a prior (initial) distribution which peaks at 3 C and has a 2.5–97.5% range of 1–10 C. Since AR5 deprecates ECS estimates based on both these methods and also because the prior distribution used strongly favours high ECS values, no weight should be put on the results. The other unlabelled AR4 range is from Hegerl et al. (2006), which combined its own last-millennium proxy estimate with an instrumental estimate from a modified version of Frame et al. (2005). Problems with these studies, in particular Frame et al. (2005), were described above in the context of the PDFs in Figure 9.20 of AR4. The Aldrin et al. (2012) combination estimate, which likewise uses a last-millennium proxy-based estimate from Hegerl et al. (2006), gives a much lower and better constrained ECS range – showing that the palaeoclimate estimate used has little influence – and is much to be preferred.
/pol/ is mad.
Let's laugh at mad /pol/.
>>7943880
>those papers aren't cherrypicked! the whole field is like that!
>here, let me list a few papers as proof
this sort of loud nonsense is how you know the /pol/ack invasion has begun. protip: the correct response to allegations of cherry-picking is not to cherry-pick slightly more.
>>7943901
>>7943905
>>7943908
>>7943913
>>7943917
>>7943921
>>7943925
quotes pulled verbatim from a document on a known denier's wordpress blog.
the document is an excellent example of cargo-cult science; it's formatted to look neat, and it's got a pretty figure, but it's just one big discussion section with references appended. there's no introduction to set the paper in its proper context, no methodology to explain what sort of analysis he subjected any of those papers to, and certainly nothing actually pulled from the papers he's critiquing. it is literally one great big opinion that doesn't draw on any sort of evidence. but it looks nice and sciencey, and so the deniers will eat it up like the good little sheep they are.
>>7940524
>(which is a good move regardless of climate change)
it's a shame more people don't realise this
>>7944073
It's all bullshit, and something tells me the poster knows it's bullshit, deep down. But they have this agenda that's just got them by the balls, it makes them do things and say things in a kneejerk fashion.
Loud mouthed purveyor of bullshit. It's 2016 man, even republicans are coming around and going "you know what there might be something to this" Denialists are becoming more and more of a lunatic fringe as time goes and even this very past month we surpassed +1.35C above the 1951-1980 average, smashing the record set only one month prior, in Jan!
I don't get why people are defensive of CO2. Why is it so unthinkable that CO2 is the major factor? The only thing that comes to mind is political agenda, desu. But I've also thought that it has something to do with religion, and the idea of manifest destiny, and that we are created in God's image. Because therefore, we can't really do wrong. The Earth is our dominion and since we are in God's image, we couldn't possibly fuck it up that badly. This is waxing philosophical I know.
I thank each one of you who stands up to the throwbacks and takes the time to present the truth.
>>7944073
>the document is an excellent example of cargo-cult science; it's formatted to look neat, and it's got a pretty figure, but it's just one big discussion section with
> I don't know how to deal with data and papers which demonstrate that my ideology is unjustified.
Wow! what a substantive answer. Full of insight and rigorous analysis.
>>7944630
>Loud mouthed purveyor of bullshit. It's 2016 man, even republicans are coming around and going
>Look at my deep, sophisticated analysis. We Climate Change fearmongers pride ourselves in our scientific rigor.
If you really want to protect your deeply held beliefs just call it what it is; a secular religion.
>>7945541
>this other guy's opinions are scientific fact! why don't you accept his opinions as fact?
dude, his document doesn't contain any data. it doesn't subject the conclusions of other papers (actual peer-reviewed ones, unlike his) to any sort of analysis, and it doesn't highlight any actual issues in the methodology. all he does is declare that certain numerical values are wrong and biased (without providing evidence of such) and hand-wave his way to outright rejection of those papers.
it's not actual science (pic related); it's just formatted to LOOK like it is. and the fact that you think it disproves the warming of the earth just goes to show that you fell for the meme
Bumping bread
>>7937206
>Inject all that revenue into nuclear fusion and/or fission(i.e., thorium) R&D
there. ftfy.
>>7945555
You mean "he's" back...
Daily reminder that climate models have been able to predict and track global warming for decades.
I'd *love* to see someone present a successful prediction made by a model with climate sensitivity lower than 1C.
Been trying to think how to reverse a runaway effect. (Massive gas releases due to heat). Obviously 1st priority is to heavily pollute the stratosphere to reduce sunlight, carbon nano particles I guess, however cant shade the rainforests, tricky. 2nd is to manage the temperature gradient getween the stratosphere & tropospheres (stratosphere is cooling as troposphere is heating). Initially, I guess atmospheric nuclear explosions to mix things up. 3rd lower the surface albedo, (bye bye rape seed and sunflower fields), nuke arctic pack ice and antarctic shelves, try to break them up to prevent doubling down on heating by reflection.
How likely is the tropics becoming uninhabitable? How much of an impact is climate change going to have on humanity?
>>7936203
I don't care
I don't care
>>7945729
>the conclusions of other papers (actual peer-reviewed ones, unlike his)
>actual peer-reviewed ones, unlike his
>>7943880 4 peer reviewed papers
>>7943884 6 peer reviewed papers
>>7943888 5 peer reviewed papers
>>7943895 5 peer reviewed papers
20 peer reviewed papers.
The denial is strong in this one.
>>7944073 (you shill)
>the document is an excellent example of cargo-cult science; it's formatted to look neat,
I want to add a couple other things.
please, Please PLEASE!!!!! DO NOT GO TO THIS WEB PAGE:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Highlights
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEER REVIEWED PAPERS DUNKING CLIMATE "SCIENCE"
DO NOT LOOK AT THEM!!! DO NOT LOOK AT THE REFERENCES, DO NOT READ THE PAPERS!!!!!
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Scientists are open minded people, so do not look at these peer reviewed papers.
>>7944630 (you shill)
> I thank each one of you who stands up to the throwbacks and takes the time to present the truth.
> Continue to present the truth as I dictate it.
Once again, I must warn you.
DO NOT READ THIS SUMMARY WHICH DEMONSTRATES LOW CLIMATE SENSITIVITY:
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/A-Sensitive-Matter-Foreword-inc.pdf
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS WEBSITE!!!!!!:
http://www.thegwpf.org
Some people say it's all about the $100,000,000,000 a year. That's a lie.
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS WEBSITE:
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf
>>7947991
I don't care, I live in the northern hemisphere are warming is a good thing, man made or not. I fully support it, I can deal with being a climate heretic. All the heretics leading up to the Reformation were good people. World needs another reformation, dismantlement of the UN before global despotism sets in.
>>7948052
why yes, you linked to some papers.
do those papers disprove climate change like you're implying? no. do they show that SOME scientists think the sensitivity is fairly low? yeah, sure.
two different things, friendo. citing peer-reviewed papers in and of itself doesn't make your argument right. the papers actually have to support what you're claiming.
>>7948054
>THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEER REVIEWED PAPERS DUNKING CLIMATE "SCIENCE"
And there's a little problem with that. First off, many on that list aren't peer-reviewed. Many of the documents are comments or letters, which may be published in prestigious journals, but which are NOT peer-reviewed.
And then there's the issue of them purportedly "dunking" (presumably you meant "debunking"?) climate science. Gordon 1990 literally just says that the graph of temperature by year looks sort of like a random-walk graph. Royer 1989 simply says that regional long-scale temperature fluctuations in the northeast Atlantic aren't tied to global warming. Balling and Idso 1992 flat out says that human emissions ARE responsible for climate disruptions in Europe. Barrett 1994 takes issue with a proposed mechanism for the action of water vapor and CO2 as greenhouse gases, an action that is known beyond doubt and affirmed in the paper. Rial et al. 2004 flat-out affirms that human CO2 emissions are causing the Earth to warm!
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. The papers do not say what you (nor the authors of the list) say they do!
(The fact that many of the listed papers are authored by known deniers like Willie Soon, who hid the millions he received from fossil fuel interests, is an entirely secondary concern.)
>>7948326
>being this butthurt about a disputed 2C temp raise over 100 years.
>>7936203
>What are your thoughts on climate change?
Not my problem.
>>7936203
Most effective way to reverse climate change? Why, an all-out nuclear war, of course.
>>7948965
Daily reminder that the imaginary 'pause' was never a real thing.
![holocenetemps[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/nDSTbs2.gif "holocenetemps[1].gif")
>>7948973
careful, your time axis is a bit short imo
>>7948057
>>7948054
You're out of your depth here. This board is for discussion of actual science, not for delusional halfwits who failed high school and have carried a chip on their shoulder about it ever since, who don't understand how science is done or how to distinguish between real science and bullshit to verbally masturbate and pretend that really it's everyone else who's retarded.
Because that's all conspiracy theories, including climate change denial, are about. A vehicle for retards who feel inadequate to pretend that they've figured something out and that makes them cleverer than everyone else.
This is why a conspiratard is incapable of being persuaded by fact and reason that he's wrong. It's not about right and wrong, it's about maintaining the pretence, at all costs, that he's the enlightened one. Asking a conspiratard to admit, even to himself, that he got it wrong is asking him to admit that all this time he's been calling everyone else blind sheep, in reality he was the only blind sheep. An unlikely outcome given that the whole thing is driven by ego in the first place.
The funny part is that while conspiratards believe they're demonstrating how clever and enlightened they are and hiding their deep insecurity about their lack of intellectual prowess, they're actually running said insecurity up a flagpole for all to see.
>>7948976
Huh that's funny, mine looks a little different. Where'd yours come from?
![1311603778372[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iK2GCXP.jpg "1311603778372[1].jpg")
>>7948991
> reconstructed temperature,
Just as I thought you couldn't get any more desperate
>>7948993
Uh.. yeah. It's reconstructed, does that surprise you? Here's from the summary:
This image is a comparison of 11 different published reconstructions changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times for which they have been postulated, though it is under dispute whether these should be considered global or merely regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison.
>>7948998
we don't care about the last 2000 years, I care about the last 8000 years.
>>7948998
how do you "reconstruct" shit that isn't based on complete bullshit ? based on what verifiable or testable data ?
>>7948973
that bit they kept calling the pause is in there, it's just harder to see in the context of all the warming happening around it.
>>7949029
*8000
>>7949029
>Ok I'll bite: assuming that graph is remotely accurate, why exactly is what happened 8000 years ago more important than what's happening.. say, today?
because it IS today. Ancient egypt started 6k years ago for crying out loud.
It shows that climate changes (surprise), and that humans lived in both hotter and colder climate overall, while surviving perfectly fine.
And so did a lot of species.
I just hate alarmism.
>>7949043
So you're saying it is happening, and it is man made, but there's no cause for alarm.
>>7949043
>It shows that climate changes (surprise), and that humans lived in both hotter and colder climate overall, while surviving perfectly fine.
So what?
First of all, we're on a trajectory far beyond the temperatures of 8kya, and we've already probably passed that mark.
Secondly, it's the rate of change that's the major concern, not just the size of the change.
Thirdly, we now depend on a bunch of stuff that wasn't such a big deal to the people of 8kya.
>I just hate alarmism.
What is that even supposed to MEAN?
>>7949057
>So you're saying it is happening, and it is man made
no, I'm saying it is happening. Don't put words I didn't say in my mouth please.
>First of all, we're on a trajectory far beyond the temperatures of 8kya, and we've already probably passed that mark.
no we haven't.
>Secondly, it's the rate of change that's the major concern, not just the size of the change.
we know nothing about how the current "rate of change" compares to older rates of change since we never had such a high sample rate.
>Thirdly, we now depend on a bunch of stuff that wasn't such a big deal to the people of 8kya.
then maybe it's time we stopped depending on that
>I just hate alarmism.
>What is that even supposed to MEAN?
using inexact science (and manipulated data to only further agendas) to warrant debatable policies and global brainwashing and squash people's sense of criticism.
>>7936873
You display a terrible lack of understanding on this topic.
>>7949095
I was just asking for clarity dude. I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from exactly. Forgot the question mark, oops.
I see your definition of alarmism there.. you.. yeah, heh. I do have compassion for you. And I do agree that we need to stop depending so much on.. stuff. Like fossil fuels, or whatever you meant, I don't know.
The warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is supposed to be logarithmic, so each doubling in concentration causes the same temperature increase whatever the starting level.
I found that CO2 measurement began in 1958 with a concentration of about 307.5 ppm and that the current value is 395.2 ppm. The increase is about 1.5 ppm per year and if it stayed that way the doubled value of 790ppm would be reached in 395ppm/(1.5ppm/year) = 263 years, which means in the late 22nd century.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling (ECS) is currently estimated to be less than +2°C with a trend pointing to no warming effect at all. Because of this volatile situation, the IPCC's AR5 no longer mentions a 'best estimate' while the value given in AR4 (2007) was still +3°C.
Not much remains of the 'dominant CO2' theory and the lack of warming over the last twenty years looks like an empirical falsification to me. What now?
>>7949431
Maybe you should stop obsessing over short-term satellite data and cherry-picked sensitivity papers.
>>7949431
>>7949637
What he really should stop doing is using incomplete measurements.
>>7949776
>40 years period of time
discarded
>>7948976
>let's study a possible effect on a 100-year timescale
>by looking at the last 18000 years in low resolution
ah, the cherry-picked interval, weapon of choice of the denier.
>>7949095
>we know nothing about how the current "rate of change" compares to older rates of change since we never had such a high sample rate.
you don't know the speed limit law? go back to high school calc, you scrub. also, we can infer a lot about ancient climates from paleoecology.
>>7949789
>he used the satellite temperature record starting at its establishment and running through the present
>jesus christ how horrifying
glad to know you reject out-of-hand any intervals that don't fit your narrative of "warming? what warming?"
>>7949795
yes I really should accept any intervals that fit your narrative of man-made warming instead.
Jesus can we replace captchas with mini-IQ tests already?
>>7949431
woodfortrees? See, I can make graphs on that site too.
>>7949818
like the entire record of temperature observation by satellite, which covers the last ~40 years of an effect thought to be active for about a century? gosh, that's TOTALLY cherry-picked, right?
so what interval do you think is objectively more valid? if you think it should be longer, you're not wrong, but tough beans anyway because that particular dataset only goes back to 1979. if you think it should be shorter, I'd love to know your reasoning as to why year-to-year fluctuations are more important than the long-term trend.
put another way: we're looking at an effect thought to be present for about a century. why should we only look at the last 20 years? riddle me THAT, cherry-picker.
>>7949869
Why have the century-spanning effect been absent for almost 20 years if it's related to CO2 emissions, which have been higher than ever before during those 20 years?.
Anyway, RSS is jumping onto the adjustment bandwagon so by 2040 we'll have a temperature anomality that's +400 degrees according to the graphs but no observed effects in reality.
>Washington post
>2039
>"Climate scientists propose new season called Summer because unprecedented global warming have ruined our planet and altered our climate, repent now and climate tax!"
The great irony is that those who shout denier the loudest are those who selectively ignore the most.
As long as no one suggests geoengineering it will at worst be higher electricity prices and other novelty taxes though, thankfully I have enough money to be a sensible capitalist and invest in china and other sensible nations.
>>7941759
Thanks for that asshole, I just scalded the shit out of my mouth
>>7949876
>Anyway, RSS is jumping onto the adjustment bandwagon so by 2040 we'll have a temperature anomality that's +400 degrees according to the graphs but no observed effects in reality.
Now we've advanced to conspiracy theories. What will come next? Usually it's ad hominems and insults, but maybe he'll offer something creative.
Oh and by the way, satellites do not "observe" temperature, they reconstruct (there's the word again) the temperature profile of the atmosphere from oxygen microwave emissions via a computer model.
>>7949887
Thanks for that asshole, I just squirted juice out my nose.
>>7949900
>Now we've advanced to conspiracy theories
They openly stated it any it somehow becomes a conspiracy theory?
You really are a denier.
>>7949933
They've admitted they're fabricating results? I don't think so. Or...you don't really think that this is the first time satellite readings have been adjusted, do you?
>>7949066
>First of all, we're on a trajectory far beyond the temperatures of 8kya, and we've already probably passed that mark.
Not really
thats just an urban heat island effect bias'ing the temperature stations
>>7949960
Urban Heat Island effect is corrected by homogenization and direct satellite measurement of urban density.
>>7936203
simple a complete switch away from fossil fuels, which should reverse the harm done over time.
all we need is a breakthrough energy source (like when nuclear power first came around) that produces a shit ton, w/o harmful emissions.
>>7949876
>Why have the century-spanning effect been absent for almost 20 years
it hasn't.
>>7949933
>>7949960
>oh no, they're tampering with the data! adjusting is evil!
>oh no, the data are skewed by measurement biases that they didn't correct for! not adjusting is evil!
one way or the other, m88. are there artifacts of measurement that need to be adjusted for, or can we trust the trend present in the raw data?
>>7949974
How does urban heat island effect get corrected by homogenization? lol
>>7950050
Urban Heat Island Effect is by definition an inhomogeneity, an urban area surrounded by colder rural areas.
>>7950060
Almost all the sensors are located in areas that are affected by the urban heat island effect.
>>7948952
Unless you plan on living in space or on another planet, it is most certainly your problem
>>7950063
This is outright untrue.
In fact there is a reference network specifically designed to avoid the UHI.
>>7948977
Beautifully put
>>7950063
False and irrelevant, since if you only look at rural stations you get the same trend. This has been analyzed a number of ways and everything shows UHI is corrected well. There was even a project devoted to this supported by skeptics called Berkeley Earth that showed no UHI bias.
>>7949863
low quality
>>7950105
Notice how this image does not say anything about why satellites should be class 1...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX7aWsxe9yw
>>7950045
>20 years of no data adjustments
>"This doesn't agree with our models!"
>Completely "neutral" data adjustment makes past colder and present hotter
>Now this is more like it
>repeat several times, same cooling effect on the past every time, same heating on present every time
>"Now this is more like reality!"
>Make data adjustment in december
>Announce "20xx Nth warmest year ever in january!"
>Make data adjustment next year in december
>Announce "20xx+1 Nth warmest year ever in january!"
>Make data adjustment next year indecember
>Announce "20xx+2 Nth warmest year ever in january!"
>Make data adjustment next year in december
>Announce "20xx+3 Nth warmest year ever in january!"
>Go back and look over the past announcements with the latest adjusted graph at hand.
>20xx was Nth-4 warmest year at the time of annoucement in last dataset.
>20xx+1 was Nth-10 warmest year at time of annoucement in last dataset.
>20xx+2 was warmer than 20xx+3 despite ranking lower at time of annoucement.
>"But anon of course the numbers are completely true and reliable even though they change once a year to something completely different that by coincindence just happens to produce a more alarming press-release headline! It's climate and these Climate Scientsists have integrity and are veritable angels with no single fault in their published paper, yes I know the reproductibility rate is less than 50% in every other scientific field due to improper review procedures but climate science isn't other scientific fields so they are 100% true every time!
If Climatecuck isn't yet a word in the dictionary it should be added and linked to your post.
What's Next? Prosecuting String Theory Denialists?
The revelation that AG Loretta Lynch had discussions about bringing charges against climate change deniers (I've yet to meet a 'climate change denier') has led to a few questions about whether people like me (a skeptic of the view that the human influence on climate is either large or dangerous) should be worried.
The very fact that politicians use terms like climate change deniers means they really don't understand the scientific debate, anyway. The climate always changes.
The pertinent questions are: (1) by how much?, (2) how much is due to human activities?, (3) is it bad?, and (4) can we do anything about it without killing millions in the process?
Given the fact that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, and there is so little of it in the atmosphere, for now I’m going with the view that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing - not a bad thing.
>>7949876
>RSS is jumping onto the adjustment bandwagon
MT Comparison: RSS v4 versus UAH v6
Satellite problems
www.drroyspencer.com
>>7950151
>20 years of no data adjustments
You are completely clueless. All the temp. products are adjusted constantly. Always have been. Why do you even participate in this debate when you clearly know nothing about the subject?
>>7950144
>image does not say anything
of course not, it's the text that does
>>7950189
Your image contains text you sophistic shithead
>>7950189
No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention the satellite data in its analysis, it just compares different ground based systems. If it did, it would have to conclude that satellites have the most unstable, adjusted, least agreeable data sets.
>>7950189
>CO2 is such a terrible greenhouse gas that it warms the past.
Is the terminator movies a methaphor for CO2? This monster have to be stopped.
>>7950105
>comparing a graph of global temperature to a graph of European temperature
>x-axes almost but not quite aligned
why continue living?
>>7950151
>these adjustments don't agree with my opinions
>there's no way the earth is actually warming
>therefore they must be fraudulent
also, you fell for the reproducibility meme. there's no support for the 50% figure you pulled out of your ass.
>>7950168
>Given the fact that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, and there is so little of it in the atmosphere, for now I’m going with the view that more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing - not a bad thing.
Roy Spencer confirmed for retard. Sulfur is also necessary for life on Earth to exist (to a similar extent as CO2 is anyway) and we'd all be pretty unhappy if significantly more sulfur were present in the atmosphere.
>>7950189
>>image does not say anything
>of course not, it's the text that does
except it doesn't, you fucking retard. the text in the image lays out two lines of reasoning for HadCRUT being better than NCDC and GISS, but doesn't say anything about the satellite records.
>>7950223
By the very definition of reliability you cannot call something subject to repeated and multiple adjustment as reliable.
>>7950233
That only applies to satellite data, the surf. temperature products generally agree with each other regardless of adjustments.
To all who fight the good fight here, here's the thing:
At some point you have to say, 'Is this even worth it?' Is it worth it to expose the lies, correct the misperceptions, misconceptions, and false presentations, and debunk the bunk science, when you know damn well that tomorrow the deniers will bring the same exact shit that's already been thoroughly discredited, years ago even, and the next day, and the next..
Maybe on a site where people actually go for the truth, it does matter to address and challenge the bunk every time. But here?
Another issue is that there's a whole spectrum of denial, from "It's not happening" to "It might be happening but it's not manmade" to "It's happening, and it might be manmade, but it's no big deal". So you have to pin down who exactly you're talking to before anything, and then many deniers will also switch between these stances, depending on what's convenient, so you end up chasing a moving goalpost around.
A lot of the people around here are probably teenagers, who haven't been around long enough to know, I mean you have to account for that too. I don't think half of the deniers really believe the crap they're purveying, but they're some combination of troll, bluster, and diehard politics adherents. So at some point you just gotta let it go. Say, ok sure thing.
>>7950151
The Climatecuck
>Born into oil age
>New age priests convince the cuck oil, fossil fuel is bad, will bring about an end of climate days scenario with endless propaganda bombardments, doom graphs.
>Only way to prevent end of climate days is with a global carbon tax
>Cucks convert to new age religion, attempt to live without oil, or at minimum, heavily taxed oil and fossil fuels
>Cuck lives in poverty and dies early in a state of dissonance after offering themselves unto a sacrificial climate alter, dies a martyr and climatecuck.
History repeats, first as tragedy then as farce. Religion will never go away but climatecucks should just roll with neo-Paganism or something. I actually have some modicum of respect for that.
>>7950240
In the end, the truth will of course prevail, regardless of what anyone professes or believes.
>>7950240
Denial can be beaten. There was a time when people didn't (want to) believe that there's a link between smoking and cancer. The only problem is that the bullshit will only really go away when the reality is undeniable.
>>7950223
>Sulfur is also necessary for life on Earth to exist (to a similar extent as CO2 is anyway) and we'd all be pretty unhappy if significantly more sulfur were present in the atmosphere.
Are you completely fucking retarded?
(that's a rethorical question, with the answer being yes to clarify it to retards like yourself).
Please go ahead and see how much plantlife would survive if CO2 levels were lowered to be on par with sulphur containing gases.
>>7950236
>the surf. temperature products generally agree with each other
GISS doesn't even agree with itself when you compare it's current mangled state with its historical versions. Are you completely fucking blind?
>>7950257
And what is the difference in trend, hm?
>>7950250
Yeah the thing is, even when reality is undeniable, there will still be denial. At some point it just be relegated completely to the lunatic fringe I guess. Another thing is, especially around here, one of the go to tactics of the denier side is insulting, rude, ad-hominem attacks, and it's difficult not to respond in kind sometimes. It's really an upward battle where you never see much progress. But I guess there is slow progress, over time.
>>7950257
Are the changes systematic? Are there within acceptable levels of stability?
MODIS derived LST is as good as it needs to be for a global assessment of average surface temperature. Even though it's one of the least important parameters in climate science (is it even an ECV?), the data is good. People pick the wrong fight here - there are way more difficult things to measure than skin temperature.
>>7950271
This is not a debate about reliability of the measurements, but "fraud". The fact that the data is openly available and that anyone can create their own temperature series and therefore any such fraud would be pointless is completely lost on these conspiracy whackos.
>>7950271
>Are there within acceptable levels of stability?
Is Bush the first still president?
Did Donald Trump start the Gulf war during his presidency?
If you answered yes to both of these then GISS is a historically stable and accurate dataset.
>>7950268
You can't reason with religious people, climate doomers are the equivalent of a very religious population under the occult spell regurgitating mountains of propaganda supplied by their handlers.
Children are very impressionable and have no critical thinking skills. When adults pound into their peanut brains "facts", they grow up and regurgitate these ad-nausea. Making religious people is a science, not AGW. So you get what we have here today. Prophecies of climate doom regurgitated as "fact".
>>7950292
You are speaking in tongues. I personally wouldn't touch aggregates of ground-based sites like GISS with a 20 foot pole, when I can have nice high-res S3 data, but I still would say that it's a valuable set of historical measurements.
What's the beef with the GISS dataset again?
>>7950301
Exactly. Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly.
>>7950253
>Please go ahead and see how much plantlife would survive if CO2 levels were lowered to be on par with sulphur containing gases.
Wow, how much of a dishonest shithead do you have to be to twist the argument into this caricature?
>>7950312
>What's the beef with the GISS dataset again?
The constant shapeshifting it undergoes that by total coincidence just happens to produce a scary press release pretty much every year.
Why bother to plot it with any detail when it constantly changes appearance anyway?
In 1930 according to GISS, depending on which version you use, we had a -0.2 anomality, a -0.1 anomality, a flat 0 or a +0.1 anomality.
Why the need for never ending and constant readjustments? And why do the adjustments trend towards making the past colder and the present warmer when by any logic of urban creep and UHI it should be the opposite if you want to counter the shortcomings of the instrumentation?
>>7950330
It's your argument you fucking idiot, don't make it if you know it's wrong.
>>7950367
Alright, so what changes of appearance are we talking here.
I happen to process satellite records for a living. We release a data set on a yearly basis, and have been doing so for several years now. And sometimes, you'll see massive changes from one version to the next - why? Because our algorithms get better - some areas of the globe are represented better now, we even see a few bits in difficult areas, where the data becomes a bit worse. It's a trade off, but considering how young of a science this is, it's to be expected. We update our data yearly because the scientific community demands improvements.
I don't know the ins-and-outs of how the GISS group processes the records, not my area of expertise. But I assume their changes can be tracked from version to version, I assume each release comes with documentation and a press release.
Since you seem to be an expert in these matters. What is the official statement regarding the changes you seem to observe and what exactly do you find implausible? You say there's a trend in lowering past temperatures - is that true for all stations and all times? Only specific stations?
>>7950233
If you can quantify the error and adjust for it, the error-prone record is still usable. A clock that is always five minutes fast can still be used to tell the time, yes?
>>7950253
By "similar extent" I'm not talking about atmospheric concentration, you feeble-minded twit. CO2 is necessary for MOST life on Earth, but not all; the same is true for sulfur. Way to completely ignore the point.
>>7950330 isn't me.
>>7950367
>the adjusted results show a warming trend
>but the Earth can't be warming, r-right guys?
>therefore the adjustments must be fraud to make it look like the Earth is warming
>>7936873
Comically ill-informed.
>>7936203
Destroy the developing world.
There. I said it.
>>7941755
>cuntry
top kek
>>7950395
>I assume their changes can be tracked from version to version,
They try their best to purge the past from the records.
>What is the official statement regarding the changes
"Trust us we're the experts!"
>I happen to process satellite records for a living
> you'll see massive changes from one version to the next
Clearly not satellite temperature records because they've remained similar for decade+ with the only adjustment of significance being for orbital decay.
>You say there's a trend in lowering past temperatures - is that true for all stations and all times?
For the overall graph appearance.
Some stations receieve some rather arcane treatment though. A cooling trend in Peru was inverted to a warming trend while a relatively recent glacial winter in Iceland that had their fishing boats grounded in Reykjavik due to its brutality was disappeared from the record.
It's not made better when station documentation suggests increasing UHI but the adjustments being made for inverted UHI.
It's also rather ugly that the relatively recent reference network(USCRN) is mostly ignored, despite being constructed to be a gold standard ultra high quality station network with guaranteed pristine conditions. The data from it is still treated as shit quality and subject to adjustment when used. Probably because no doomspeaker can use a boring graph like picrelated.
>>7950436
>They try their best to purge the past from the records.
Is that a yes or no? Will I find changelogs when I go on their website?
>only adjustment of significance being for orbital decay
Orbital decay? LST adjustment? What are you talking about? Radiometer measurements are not particularly influenced by spacecraft altitude. Never heard of that having any influence other than geolocation issues. Unless the DUMs fuck up the instrument .. which is another cup of tea.
>Some stations receieve some rather arcane treatment though. A cooling trend in Peru was inverted to a warming trend while a relatively recent glacial winter in Iceland that had their fishing boats grounded in Reykjavik due to its brutality was disappeared from the record.
How do you mean - disappeared? Did the Americans go in with their Navy and destroy the Iceland Met Office computers?
Anyway, I feel like we should just not spend any further second on bias corrections anymore. Just ship out the data like it comes out of our algorithms and let you fuckers sort the rest out..
Sure, you might see some strange shit going on, like deserts acting as a carbon source or high-altitude regions having generally a higher skin temperature, but we wouldn't want to correct for those, right? Because that's the climate lobby forcing us to pay monies.
>>7950452
>Will I find changelogs
Absolutely not.
>What are you talking about?
Dunno the technical details, it's second hand information but as it's a drifting instrument in a decent vacuum there shouldn't be much more adjustments required than for altitude. If I don't misunderstand the technology the microwave(?) instrumentation they use don't require much time to aquire the data as unlike some narrow angle satellites like HiRISE they just do a rough snapshot sweep, so in tradeoff of not giving us a google maps of temperature heatmaps there's no long duration cycle to get a full dataset from them.
>How do you mean - disappeared?
Injected magical heat for periods where there was none. Picrelated. This isn't just arbitrary adjustments of the ass end of nowhere with no observers, the fishing industry took a hit during those years due to ice cover that according to giss never was there. The raw data is there but the GISS version is "what ice you fucking climate deniers??? Just look at our graph!"
>we wouldn't want to correct for those, right? Because that's the climate lobby forcing us to pay monies.
Why pay someone for what a zealot does for free, the "don't attribute to malice what incompetence can explain" proverb?
My issue is with every adjustment, by complete coincidence I'm told, is perfectly aligned with a ideological climate doomsday narrative, while at the same time we see a complete lack of coherence in the field.
Do a quick research on the by now legendary "pause" and you'll find an ironic lot of climate proponents completely denying the pause while an equal lot of proponents saying that it actually is a thing. There's no consistency, there's no uniformity, there's several dozens of stumbling explanations for it that never reach anything of a consensus or have explanatory power.
It appears like satire out of some non-existent movie where people try to explain the shortcomings of their promises to the dear great leader.
>>7950503
>Just look at our graph!"
I forgot to attach it so here it is.
>>7948326
>citing peer-reviewed papers in and of itself doesn't make your argument right.
> the papers actually have to support what you're claiming.
[EVIL DENIER] cites papers demonstrating low climate sensitivity
Evil denier claims low climate sensitivity
Damn you're funny. Especially when you copy citations from SimpletonPseudoScience.
The butthurt is strong in this one.
>>7950506
Peer-review is broken as shit.
Go read the author submission criteria. You can often append a list of suggested "specialist reviewers"(aka friends) that vote a pass for you. While not explicitly stated an exclusion list can also be appended and the editor will read it and consider it depending on bribes or your status.
The journals don't care about scientific integrity as much as they care about juicy fucking headlines, if an independent reviewer says "Well, it looks unlikely to be true but the fabricated data is of a really good standard" the editor is going to publish, because the journal gets money from headlines and give no single fuck if the scientists have their career ruined later on.
For what's supposed to be a safeguard of scientific integrity it's a complete fucking disaster. It's not much of surprise that studies find reproductibility rates to be well below 50% in many fields.
>>7948326
> Gordon 1990 : Temperature pattern indistinguishable from random walk; there goes AGW!
> Royer 1989 : NE temp fluctuations don't correlated to climate change; so much for that silly AGW theory no evidence from NE weather.
> Balling and Idso 1992 quote: "provides strong support for the premise that anthropo-generated climate change is indeed occurring in Europe, but that it may well be SO2-induced rather than CO2-induced"
That's sulpher dioxide! Not CO2. How disingenuous of you.
...
... blah, blah
And those 20 references demonstrating low climate sensitivity?
>>7948977
>Because that's all conspiracy theories, including climate change denial,
97% of scientists believed in Classical Mechanics => Quantum Mechanics is a conspiracy!
97% of scientists believed that the continents were fixed => Continental drift theory is a conspiracy!
97% of scientists believed that atoms were the smallest object => Sub-atomic particle theory is a conspiracy!
97% of scientists believed in the phlogiston theory of fire => combustion theory is a conspiracy!
97% of Soviet Russian scientists believed in Lysenkoism (sound familiar?) => Genetic heredity is a conspiracy theory!
> I am very vulnerable to meme driven specious arguments
Indeed, try logic sometime.
>>7948973
>pause
So you're denying the scientific consensus that there's been a 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…”
>>7950436
>posts graph of US temperature over ten years
>the whole planet totally isn't warming you guise!
do you realize how retarded you are for conflating the temperature of one country with the temperature of the entire globe?
>>7950503
>>Will I find changelogs
>Absolutely not.
took me less than five minutes to find them, you toddler.
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
>>7950505
>hurr let's superimpose two graphs of different things and complain that they look different
>data series unclearly labeled
>x-axes not even aligned properly
jesus fuck, you guys can't even make decent graphs. I didn't know it was even possible to be this incompetent
>>7950506
he claimed that the consensus was of fairly low sensitivity to CO2, and cherry-picked a few studies that said so. when called on his cherry-picking, he proceeded to cherry-pick slightly more studies, ignorant of the fact that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
separately, he claimed (in paragraphs copied wholesale from some dude's blog, basically) that a bunch of climate studies couldn't be trusted, without providing any reasoning as to why. when called on that egregious example of cargo cult science, he hurriedly pointed to all those papers TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY as evidence that he was right.
like I said, the papers have to actually support your claim.
>hurr durr I said he got it from SkepticalScience therefore he's wrong
>>7950540
one, a graph just LOOKING KINDA LIKE another graph doesn't mean they're "indistinguishable"
two, anthropogenic climate change isn't necessarily reflected in every single pattern in every single system. insisting that if long-scale fluctuations in one area of one ocean don't follow rising temperatures to the letter that temperature must not be rising is imbecilic.
three, the paper explicitly confirms that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, but that SO2 may have more of an effect than CO2. and this disproves climate change...how, exactly?
>>7950558
>>7948973
Still denying the scientific consensus that there's been a 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.”
>>7950558
>THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!
>here, lemme cite four papers as proof.
you still haven't learned the better of your cherry-picking ways, have you anon?
>>7950558
>>7948973
Still denying the scientific consensus that there's been a pause?
Still denying the scientific consensus that there's been a 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.”
>>7950558
Please give me a flowchart with your links. I want to shut up one of my vegetarian super enviro friend that constantly keeps nagging about this shit.
>>7950562
>>7948973
Still denying the scientific consensus that there's been a 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…..
>>7950566
How much are you getting paid to shill?
>>7950562
>>7950567
>>7950570
>2016
>posting letters and thinking they're actual peer-reviewed studies
>thinking that cherry-picking a few papers proves the existence of a consensus
>>7950559
>hurr let's superimpose two graphs of different things and complain that they look different
It's not my fault that GISS fabricates a graph with an enormous temperature anomality difference. You're supposed to defend it and not shit in your own bed.
>>7941755
>wearing a half-mask to get groceries
>>7950587
>this graph I pulled from Stephen Goddard's blog is shitty?
>well it's, um, it's...
>it's GISS's fault, that's what!
>our graph is shitty because they tampered with the data!
so, um, your evidence that the data is tampered with is...?
>it's OBVIOUS that they tampered with the data, just look at my shitty graph!
really dude? this is the best you can do?
>>7950568
Many scientific citations are given here:
>>7948054
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Scholarly discussion is here:
>>7948057
www.thegwpf.org
Evil Denier Links are:
wattsupwiththat.com
realclimatescience.com
jannenova.com.au
climateaudit.org
A non-technical site with many links is:
climatedepot.com
>>7950598
>I don't even have a graph so I'll just ad hominem
Just admit that you lost the argument.
>>7950589
Hey, you made me laugh.
You've earned this pic, together with the $8 an hour for shilling, get yourself a latte.
>>7950606
>$8/hour
Your greenpeace wage is fucking terrible. I get $50 per hour for social media management at unnamed big oil.
Of course I work for an industry that actually do something useful for society unlike your bleedy heart leftist vegan cucks that can only complain about your sad and baseless opinions.
>>7950559
>>>7950506 (You)
>he claimed that the consensus was of fairly low sensitivity to CO2, and cherry-picked a few studies that said so. when called on his cherry-picking, he proceeded to cherry-pick slightly more studies, ignorant of the fact that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
20 peer reviewed studies is "cherry picking."
20 peer reviewed studies is "anecdote"
Its funny how you warmists love to talk about peer reviewed research. Never mind that 95% of reviewers are warmists and 95% of editors are warmists; makes for a huge outcome when an Evil Denier gets published.
And so you're left mumbling and prevaricating, "peer reviewed research that we don't like is anecdotal!"
And you're not very good at quantifying peer review, pic related.
>>7950600
Look, I can play this game too:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
Just under 12000 peer-reviewed studies, with 97.2% agreeing that AGW exists.
>babby's 1350
>>7950559
>>>7950436
>>posts graph of US temperature over ten years
>>the whole planet totally isn't warming you guise!
>do you realize how retarded you are for conflating the temperature of one country with the temperature of the entire globe?
You do realize how retarded you sound for not knowing that there is a high correlation between U.S. temperature anomalies and global temp anomalies. Pic related. U.S. predictions and World are almost exactly the same. (dashed black line and solid black line).
Are you going to run over and cite Dana's libelous claims about this graph?
PEOPLE DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE WHERE DANA NUCCITELLI'S ARTICLE/GRAPH IS THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
>nb4 Evil Lord Monckton.
Ain't it great!
>>7950626
97% of tobacco company scientists say that tobacco companies deserve your money.
97% of government paid scientists say that government needs more of your tax money.
Q: What do you call a (untenured) government paid scientist who denies AGW?
A: Unemployed!
Not impressed.
Did you know that Russian scientists say AGW is bunk?
"We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited," he said. "It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded."
What's the difference? Oh yeah, you don't lose your job if you deny AGW in Russia.
Climate science has so far been massively unsuccessful in predicting anything
Painfully obvious that they are either missing something vital in their theories or are deliberately altering data to produce hockey stick graphs to get attention
