2015

Oh Noes! The Captain of Denial Science has spoken.
skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=227

"This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade."

web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

Remember what our captain and supreme climatologist John Cook said about denial:
Evil deniers cherry pick.
This graph is NOT cherry picking because it begins 1997
This attached graph IS cherry picking because it shows 10,000 years of temperatures.

kek. the world is actually cooling down.

Is that really your best argument? That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change?

That is literally equivalent to saying forest fires are natural therefore humans can't cause forest fires

...

> Ad Hominem!!!
Wah, wah, wah...
Insisting that only official Climate Scientists can voice opinions on the subject.
Ooooops.Endlessly calling Climate Skeptics conspiracy theorists
Endlessly calling them "deniers"
A not-so-subtle reference to holocaust deniers.

Poor baby, a victim of ad hominem. Listen to the music.

The music is playing for you.

Oh, great, each of those x-axis ticks represents 1000 years. That means that the 1900s onward, the modern age of cars and industry and what have you, all happened in that last 1/10th of a tick.

1 tick is ~40 pixels. That means the industrial age covers the part of the graph in pic related. Seems like the graph you cited is rising at an increasing rate to me.
..

...

Once again, the profound statistical mistake of mixing high resolution data (daily recordings from instrumental record) with low resolution data from proxies (approximately 50 year resolution). Put that 100 year spike through a 50 year mean value smoother and it will completely disappear.

Conspiracy theorist!
[Holocaust like] Denier!
Oil company shill!
If you don't have a Ph.D. in climatology, Shut Up!

needs moar exclam

>mean value smoother
Lrn2trend-analysis, Professor Tukey

False equivalence

Burning down trees in a nearby forest takes a lot less effort and a lot less energy than say heating up a 5.972 × 10^24 kg ball of mass by 2 degrees C.

clearly american meteorologists are lying motherfuckers

>Burning down trees
... increases carbon dioxide and heat content
in the atmosphere, while simultaneously
depleting the carbon-dioxide removal rate.
Good example, user!

>Endlessly calling them "deniers"
"deniers" appears only in the post below,
Lrn2endlessly and cease to hysteric, fgt pls

Global warming is caused by a lot more effort than burning down trees in a nearby forest. What is your point?

>reading comprehension

I'm pointing out how his statement "That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change? That is literally equivalent to saying forest fires are natural therefore humans can't cause forest fires" is a false equivalence.

The effort it takes to burn down trees is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the amount of effort needed to warm up the planet by man-made pollution, without the help of natural geological and extraterrestrial changes.

Humans can cause forest fires without nature's help. Humans cannot warm up the entire planet by tens of degrees alone without nature's cycles stepping in. That's what I'm saying.

Lrn2false-equivalence fgt pls

>I'm pointing out
just stop fgt pls

Then you clearly no nothing about climate at all or you would realize that my statement is not false equivalence at all.

But go ahead and keep being an uneducated dick

I understand that GHGs cause warming but I'm against any costly actions that would try to mitigate their release as I don't see much harm in having more CO2. Mesozoic Earth had huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and that didn't prevent life from thriving. Maybe it's way cheaper to just build walls to bar the sea level rise than to try limit fossil fuel use. Maybe corals don't die from acidification if they survived 10-times bigger CO2 levels in ancient times. Maybe it would be fun to have Antarctica ice free and warm again.

>its a false equivalence guise
Maher ? is that you ?

>unironically making global warming threads on Veeky Forums
Nobody can be this retarded

>That is literally equivalent to
>a false equivalence
You are literally equivalent to
an illiterate equivocator.

O'Reilly? Is that you?

Two hosts, both alike in dignity
On fair Veeky Forums, where we lay our scene
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed faggots take their life...

youtube.com/watch?v=IPdkF0ehCZo

...

disregarding the hilarity of trying to ascribe a "global temperature" to a system as dynamic and complicated as the earth....

ask them by how much was it a record? then ask them what is the standard error on the relevant measurements.

>ask them
no U

clearly you can be
even more retarded

the "record" is less than a tenth of a degree difference, which is ten times smaller than the standard error.

you couldn't publish that result in fucking highschool.

back to dumdum

What's the name of the picture here?
"DENIAL-response"
What's the title of the graph in that picture?
"Response to Global Warming by climate change DENIERS"
What's the term used at the end of user's comments?
>What do you DENIALISTS say?

Three times in one post. And endlessly used by AGW believers everywhere.

Actually only 52% of meteorologists accept climate change. Not exactly an overwhelming consensus. Why? Many of them aren't dependent on big government for their salary.

The government funded French meteorologist; well we know what happened to him.
cnn.com/2015/11/03/europe/france-weatherman-sacked-climate/

Dumb shit that's 52% believe that humans are causing climate chance.

87% believe that it is happening. Christ how the hell do you fail at reading a figure so hard?

>let's test if the collective memory still remembers the doctoring of historic data in 2014 & 2015 where temperatures from 100 years ago dropped a few degrees, and let's see if anyone remembers warnings about sun's flares being extra active in 2015

Fuck off, shill

The world has gone through changes all along its history. No one is denying that the world climate changes. The bullshit factor is the idea that it's "human caused."

>a slight majority believes humans cause climate change therefore it's correct
Holy fuck democracy fucks with the heads of retards. That's not how science works.

Anthropological climate change is unfalsifiable and therefore inherently unscientific.

see:

>unfalsifiable
Lrn2science fgt pls

>Dumb shit that's 52% believe that humans are causing climate chance.
>87% believe that it is happening
Christ, don't get your panties in a bunch. The term "climate change" is usually used as a short-hand for "anthropogenic climate change." Sheesh, your autism is showing.

Did you say "doctoring of data." As this comparison gif shows, NASA would NEVER change the data!

realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Evaluating-The-Integrity-Of-Official-Climate-Records-4.pdf

>nb4 Evil denier.
You guys scream about the wrongness of ad hominem.

Can't provide a falsifiability criterion can you? How about it? Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.

FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
If CO2 wasn't a [VERY WEAK, logarithmic temperature response] greenhouse gas.

Oh look, it's this crappy graph again.

>Can't provide a falsifiability criterion can you?
Do you even have the slightest idea about the subject you're trying to discredit?

Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause. Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.

You would not want to try and live during the Mesozoic. Most species on Earth alive today would not survive during the Mesozoic.

Who's Afraid of CO2?

According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive. (ncpa.org/pub/ba256)

"Increasing atmospheric CO2 is an unmixed blessing - it will bring currently unproductive land into use and bring greater yield from existing land without additional fertilizer use. This is a wonderful benefit in being able to feed an increasing world population."
seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate5.htm

New paper finds oceans net source of CO2

Great, more resources for third worlds to squander, endless dog days, and no more snow. Sounds like paradise.

>comparing a graph of 'Heat Wave Index' with a graph of 'Percent of Land Area'

What the fuck is this?

two different measures of
two different things, ya think?
Lrn2read fgt pls

>mine safety regulations
O RLY?

>falsifiability
>falsification
babby's new werdz for this week

>a plausible falsifiability criterion
Lrn2science fgt pls

Growers routinely supplement 1000ppm because 400ppm is still close to starvation level.
(resource=water)

>Is that really your best argument? That climate change is natural therefore humans can't cause climate change?

No, it's not the argument.

The argument is that humans aren't playing a large role and that change is not catastrophic.

1) Even the IPCC, the climate vatican, has been forced to admit global warming does not cause extreme weather.

2) 1/3 of the CO2 man has released since 1750 has been released since 1997. Since that year, as you saw before, there has been no global warming. A massive dump of what is supposed to be a primary climate forcing (whose effect is mostly immediate, with the lag effect being reduced) causing no warming should be cause for revision, not doubling down. If you believed in the scientific process, you would admit that.

And lastly, just to pile on here, climate science isn't science. There's no control Earth.

>Then you clearly no nothing about climate at all or you would realize that my statement is not false equivalence at all.

You certainly don't. Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others. Their predictions therefore constantly fail. If our weather predictions fail within days, how can we claim to understand the climate? And no, weather and climate are not separate. That is an arbitrary distinction.

And your statement is.

>Do you even have the slightest idea about the subject you're trying to discredit?
>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause. Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.

Wow. The irony of this post is mind-blowing.

Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2. There would be no way to scientifically prove CO2 was or was not the cause. You can't go back in time and run the Earth again while changing only one variable.

I mean, your second example might even show up if you're right! CO2 might be causing huge amounts of warming while another factor is depressing the temperature. You would throw out your own hypothesis without ever knowing you were actually correct.

You need to learn about the scientific method before you try to argue about these things, man.

>FLICC
didn't know the greenbeanposters were putting together infographics now

>studying proposed effect operating on timescale of ~100 years
>selects 20-year and 10,000-year intervals
>HURR, ARE SHORT INTERVALS CHERRY-PICKED OR ARE LONG INTERVALS? IT CAN'T BE BOTH LOL

>maybe modern life will miraculously adapt to wholly different conditions, since there used to be life adapted to those conditions
hey, why not just switch to a reducing atmosphere entirely? just get rid of all the oxygen and replace it with CO2 and methane. after all, there was plenty of life before the Great Oxygen Catastrophe!
one lesson of paleontology is that while life survives massive disruptions, the organisms present after the event are not usually the same ones that dominated before.

>meteorologists
>climate
you might as well ask an astrologer about astronomy, faggot

>Increasing atmospheric CO2 is an unmixed blessing - it will bring currently unproductive land into use and bring greater yield from existing land without additional fertilizer use.
>CO2
>limiting factor of terrestrial primary productivity
>limiting factor of marine primary productivity
pick one and only one
saying more CO2 means more plant growth is like saying more flour means more cookies.

>Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others.
literally a lie. don't think so? prove me wrong.

>There would be no way to scientifically prove CO2 was or was not the cause.

Take a chemistry class brainlet

>The argument is that humans aren't playing a large role and that change is not catastrophic.
And that runs directly against the current consensus.

>Even the IPCC, the climate vatican
For fuck's sake.

>has been forced to admit global warming does not cause extreme weather.
Do you have a reference? GW isn't the only driver of extreme weather, but AFAIK higher surface temperatures definitely have an effect.

>Since 1997 there has been no global warming.
That's simply not true.

>A massive dump of what is supposed to be a primary climate forcing (whose effect is mostly immediate, with the lag effect being reduced) causing no warming should be cause for revision, not doubling down.
What? Even if the "haitus" was a major thing (and given whether it exists at all is debated, it's not), short-term noise doesn't contradict the existence of long-term trends.

>Alarmist climate models don't include ocean oscillations, the wind, volcanoes, THE SUN and others.
Volcanic activity can't really be predicted, but all the other tings definitively part of most climate models. Why would you assume climatologists don't understand that the sun affects the climate? That's high-school shit.

>If our weather predictions fail within days, how can we claim to understand the climate?
Because those are two different things.

>And no, weather and climate are not separate.
Your ignorance isn't very convincing.

>Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2.
They were two EXAMPLES. There's no single test that can falsify AGW, because it's a massive topic of study spanning multiple fields. Instead you would need to falsify different components of it separately. Actual science is different from what gets drawn on a whiteboard in high school - very little gets thrown away due to a single experiment.

>You need to learn about the scientific method before you try to argue about these things, man.
Yes. You do.

>>meteorologists
>>climate
>you might as well ask an astrologer about astronomy, faggot
Faggot hypocrite, what's this thread about?
>American Meteorologists say 2015

>Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.
You idiot, can't read, can you? What did I say?
>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!

There was no warming from 1945 to 1975! 3 decades. Despite a huge increase in anthropogenic CO2. So by your criterion, Anthropogenic Climate Change theory has been falsified.

Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.

>
>Oh look, it's this crappy graph again.
> Oh gosh, those are actual NASA graphs! They show how fraudulent the modern temperature record is.
> I'll call them crappy, because ad hominem proves these graphs don't count
Warmists are supreme hypocrites So you posted a graph that completely rewrites the history of temperature and cherry picks the starting point.
Gosh, by your own words, cherry-picking is a sign of bogus science.

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution,
GREAT! Your theory has been falsified, see refs below.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
Airborne Fraction Rate: 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ZERO CHANGE SINCE 1850!

More science below.

Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
"The yearly increases of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the change to seasonal variation which implies that the fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year that it is emitted."
C13 temporal peaks correlate with ENSO events.

Segalstad, T. V. "The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union." Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. 1992.
Stable 13C/12C isotope ratios (expressed as δ13CPDB) can be used to compute the composition of atmospheric CO2. The natural atmo-spheric CO2reservoir has δ13C .-7lwhen in isotopic equilibrium with marine HCO3Gand CaCO3
. CO2from burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials has δ13C .-26l. δ13C reported for atmospheric CO2was -7.489lin Dec. 1978, decreasing to -7.807lin Dec. 1988 (Keeling et al. 1989; AGU Geophys. Mono. 55, 165-236). In -300 years old Antarctic ice δ13C = -6.31 of trapped CO2(Friedli et al. 1986; Nature 324, 237-238). If the decreasing δ13C was only caused by mixing natural CO2with CO2from burning of fossil fuels or plants (current -79%/-21% CO2mix; lifetime 50-200 years; IPCC 1989), the current atmospheric CO2δ13C should be much lower than reported.

Response here:

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

Another flat out lie. The increased upper troposphere water vapor didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.

>Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification.

And another flat out lie. The predicted warming was supposed to flat line no longer than 17 years. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count. As I've said before, There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

There was an actual pause: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>nb4 We didn't predict that!
References right here

ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

>For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause

Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.

So here's your reminder. Mass change of atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT correspond to the flux of anthropogenic CO2. Jaworski 1997, pic related. That's right, the increase of atmospheric CO2 is linked mostly to a warming world, not anthropogenic CO2. Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years, here's a few of MANY references.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

ARNOLD, J. R. (1957), The Distribution of Carbon-14 in Nature. Tellus, 9: 28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01850.x
CO2 Half-life: 10 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years.

Also, C-12 to C-13 carbon:
"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning (~60 GtC vs. 8 GtC, with about the same average d13C level)." Roy Spencer, evil denier.

>
>>Neither of those standards work for a situation in which the global temperature goes up along with CO2.
>They were two EXAMPLES. There's no single test that can falsify AGW, because it's a massive topic of study spanning multiple fields.

Nonsense. Its a house of cards.

>CO2 half-life 5 years
This has been the result of studies for years.
Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?

It's funny how global warming is only an issue when the weather is warm, but not when the weather is cold. Interesting psychology.

The truth is that global warming will cause some adaptation costs in the far future, but they will be a small fraction of economic growth by then. The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.

>The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.

This.

Australia gave up their green tax because it was doing nothing but making life difficult. China continues to burn high-sulfur coal. India continues to make charcoal. Africa continues to burn everything. Brazil continues to cut down the rainforest. Raising taxes in the vain hope that it would do anything is a solution?

just say no

Yep. UFO denialists and santa claus denialists too amirite ?

When you stop selling it I won't buy it.

>FAILS: Hurr, durr wait decades until the U.N. has spent a $trillions dollars
That's not what I said. Also, that's not how the UN works.

>Your phony falsification criterion fails because "multi-decadal" always means longer than we've waited!
It generally means >=30 years. We have more data than that.

>There was no warming from 1945 to 1975
Which would be a really big deal, except we have strong reasons to believe that was due to post-WWII aerosol emissions.
Like I said, the climate is a big complex thing. You can't just point to a single graph and claim that falsifies everything.

>Now you're going to come back and say that doesn't count, proving the theory is unfalsifiable.
It does count, it's just not a falsification because it's not inconsistent with the model we have.
If you could show that the known forcing COULDN'T explain a change in trend, then you might have something worth looking into. But ignoring some of the known factors going into global temperatures means your falsifying a model that doesn't actually exist.

> I'll call them crappy, because ad hominem proves these graphs don't count
That's not what ad-hominem means.
Also, that image is crappy because it's almost impossible to read, and blatantly assumes that any change in the temperature record is done to deceive people, rather than to correct for discovered artefacts. You can't just point to climatologists doing their jobs and assert that the work they're doing is part of a grand conspiracy.

>So you posted a graph that completely rewrites the history of temperature and cherry picks the starting point.
The start of the graph is the start of that temperature series. That's hardly "cherry picking".

>Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
>Airborne Fraction Rate: 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade since 1850
>THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ZERO CHANGE SINCE 1850!
Okay. So what?
That paper doesn't contradict andything I've actually said.

>Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
>Energy & environment
No.

>Segalstad, T. V. "The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. American Geophysical Union." Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. 1992.
I can barely even find any references to this. It's mentioned once in E&E, and that's it.

>A flat out lie. The predicted hot spot didn't happen. Now you lie and pretend it doesn't count.
The "hot spot" wasn't a prediction of AGW. It was a prediction from atmospheric physics, completely divorced from the source of the warming. That it didn't happen is interesting, but has nothing to do with the presence or lack of CO2-driven warming. The actual prediction from AGW was stratospheric cooling, which DID occur.

>The predicted warming was supposed to flat line no longer than 17 years.
It didn't. Go look at and surface or ocean measurements, rather than the satellite proxies. RSS underestimates the hell out of warming trends (I think they fixed that in newer graphs?), and that trend you like strongly requires the use of 1997 or 1998 as a start point. Not terribly impressive.

>There was an actual pause: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
>McKitrick
I honestly don't give a fuck about that guy.

>Great, so if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlated to anthropogenic CO2 flux, that's a nice falsification of the theory.
Only on long timescales. The year-to-year carbon exchange is pretty large, so there's no point comparing every 12 minute interval.

>Despite all the paid shills, atmospheric CO2 has a very short half-life. About 5 years
Yeah, no.
You're confusing the exhange rate with the ground and ocean, with the actual residence time for added CO2. The size of the hole in the bucket is distinct from how fast you stir the bucket.

Here: ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
Read box 6.1, page 472-473. There's a pretty good explanation of the mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere-surface-ocean system, with references to some fairly modern papers.

>"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning"
I am speechless. That is literally the fucking "how can the globe be warming if it's snowing outside?" argument.

>CO2 half-life 5 years
>This has been the result of studies for years.
>Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?
You're still confusing the atmospheric half-life with the residence time. They're two different values, with two different meanings.
Stop.

>The truth is that global warming will cause some adaptation costs in the far future, but they will be a small fraction of economic growth by then. The international coordination required to prevent it is unprecedented and unrealistic, while the adaptation can be done in a dynamic, bottom-up and local way.
Every study I've ever seen puts the costs of managing AGW as increasing significantly with time. In addition, a pure adaption strategy is completely infeasible, because the climate is still a moving target - until CO2% stops climbing, the cost of adaption is effectively infinite.

>Australia gave up their green tax because it was doing nothing but making life difficult.
No, Australia gave up their green tax because of pure politics - the current Liberal party wanted to burn everything the Labour party had touched to the ground. It didn't hurt that they're blatantly in the pockets of the coal industry either.

>Every study I've ever seen puts the costs of managing AGW as increasing significantly with time.
Yes, but of course so does economic growth and technological know-how.

>In addition, a pure adaption strategy is completely infeasible, because the climate is still a moving target - until CO2% stops climbing, the cost of adaption is effectively infinite.
Of course CO2 will eventually stop climbing, when the scarcity of fossil fuels makes them lose market share relative to other energy sources, which can be sped up if other sources innovate.

>Yes, but of course so does economic growth and technological know-how.
Technological know-how would require actual experience, which won't happen if we stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not going to happen. And the economical capacity to manage global warming is far from universal, and given that rising temperatures is going to impact the economies of many poorer countries disproportionately it's unlikely to be getting closer for everyone.

Even IF western nations are in a position where they could sit out AGW and wait for better tech (and no study I've seen agrees with that) the death toll in less well-off places would be terrible. Large-scale food shortages and flooding are the kinds of thing you want to avoid. And that's without touching on the environmental effects, or the potential international effects as poorer counties require increasing support from well-off countries, or the projected rise in conflict and violence.

The first rule of climbing out of holes is to stop digging.

>Of course CO2 will eventually stop climbing, when the scarcity of fossil fuels makes them lose market share relative to other energy sources
Ahahahaha NO.
There's more than enough coal in the ground to ruin absolutely everything for absolutely everyone. "Burn it all and see what happens next" is a TERRIBLE plan.

>digging holes
>stick our heads in the sand
>sit out AGW and wait for better tech
You are missing the fact that economic growth is itself exponential. Our capacity to adapt is not growing linearly, let alone stagnating. It is growing exponentially.

>There's more than enough coal in the ground to ruin absolutely everything for absolutely everyone.
Humbug. It came from natural sources that originally took the carbon from the atmosphere, and the world was perfectly livable back then.

I'll try to give an... explanation?... that may give some here food for thought. Some of us went to college back in the 80's and 90's, when you had to actually pick up your grades, and professors used chalk boards, and we've seen and heard a few things. I'm guessing the average age on this board is maybe 20? Anyone heard of the hole in the ozone layer? Everyone in the southern hemisphere should be dead from skin cancer by now, yet I haven't heard anything about that for 20 years. We had a program on our computers that let us adjust oil usage worldwide, it even let us adjust so that ALL of the interior of the earth was oil. It said we'd be out of oil ten years ago. Global warming was a topic then too, and then somewhere in the 90's they said, "No! First it'll heat up, then it'll go ice age!" Something about the Atlantic conveyer or whatever. All of this, and more, is why some of us sit back and watch and are so skeptical.

You guys aren't old enough to have seen this stuff. You think you're looking at things objectively, scientifically, but you're actually pretty much spouting what you've been taught. Not pointing fingers or blaming, just calling a spade a spade.

>Inb4 "stopped reading at..."

>“Wow, we were way, way off,”
>said Dr. Chris Eula of the UN.
>“It’s really sad so many scientists wasted
>their careers studying climate change and
>climate science only to find out that the
>whole thing was a giant hoax.”
thesciencepost.com/united-nations-cancels-climate-change-conferences-internet-commenter-proves-hoax/

>It came from natural sources that originally took the carbon from the atmosphere, and the world was perfectly livable back then.
You can't be fucking serious.

>Anyone heard of the hole in the ozone layer? Everyone in the southern hemisphere should be dead from skin cancer by now, yet I haven't heard anything about that for 20 years.
That's because it was fixed. The chemicals responsible were banned / taxed heavily, and the hole has been slowly shrinking ever since.
You know, the exact same kind of thing we're pushing for here.

>We had a program on our computers that let us adjust oil usage worldwide, it even let us adjust so that ALL of the interior of the earth was oil. It said we'd be out of oil ten years ago.
????
I think there must have been a horrible mistake in your maths. The Earth is rather large.

>Global warming was a topic then too, and then somewhere in the 90's they said, "No! First it'll heat up, then it'll go ice age!"
I'm not sure which "they" you have in mind, but the scientific consensus was definitely on CO2-driven global warming then.

>All of this, and more, is why some of us sit back and watch and are so skeptical.
Yeah, it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect.
You don't understand the subject, so you'll listen to your own half-remembered news soundbites over the actual reports from climatologists.

>You can't be fucking serious.
I notice you don't have a factual response, therefore the blustering.

We're not talking about Venus here. We're talking about a time when the carbon which is now in the fossil fuels was in the atmosphere and life on earth was fine and thriving.