New video on climate change from popular /pol/ figure Steven Crowder

What do you mean alt shit? I'm just curious what alt means, when people say alt right or alt left etc

_donald

Alternative, as in the popular phrase 'nobody well adjusted enough to appear on daytime television believes this crap'

>simulations assuming AGW is the main driver have a large error because lolnonergodicity
>simulations assuming AGW is not the main driver have a larger error
>somehow this means AGW is not the main driver
"skeptics" everyone

That does sound like /pol/ in a nutshell.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
>The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States.

Basically right wing ideologies that are not traditionally held by the conservatives of the US. White nationalism and supremacism, while being far right ideologies, are not common in the US right-wing ("common" as in represented by one of the two ruling parties).

"alt" in general. It's probably a bit hard to pin down exactly, it's a general attitude to things. The big part of it that appears here is deliberately picking extreme, provocative views that are aimed at ideas considered sacrosanct by "the other side" and blasting them with an extreme disregard for truth. Sometimes the ideas as sacrosanct for purely social reasons, sometimes because they're just reality, but it doesn't really matter. A lot of it is more a "how" than a "what" though.

It's not that these things don't have a place, it can be a lot of fun to troll with alty shit- I just don't like it in Veeky Forums.

Doesn't matter, because ocean acidification.

How can Anthropomorphic Global Warming be real if our eyes aren't real?

>Anthropomorphic

kek

>Ocean Acidification.
Ocean acidification work ignores early data and cherry picks more recent data.
The data source is on the graph also see below.
abeqas.com/global-ocean-ph-measured-1910-1920/

And Henry's Law does not apply:

Wiki Article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law

It also only applies simply for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid(H2CO3) to a certain degree with water.

Here is the calcuation of pH changes from anthropogenic CO2 from 1958 to 2010, its minuscule. The rest is natural variation as demonstrated by the graph.

scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter09.html#t9.3

Any change in the carbonate/bicarbonate ratio also means a change in pH. On the assumption that at any point in time in the mixed laye
r the equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2 concentration is established, and using the prediction of Machta (1972) on future CO2 levels (at the time of calculation), Whitfield (1974) finds for the change of pH:

A.D. 1958: [CO 2 (g)] = 313 ppm;pH = 8.24
A.D. 2010: [CO2 (g)] = 453.5 ppm; pH = 8.16

THEREFORE MOST OCEAN pH VARIATION IS NOT CAUSED BY ANTHROPOGENIC CO2

Bicarbonate Buffering System
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicarbonate_buffering_system
whs-marinebio.wikispaces.com/Water & Currents

Carbon dioxide in the water forms carbonic acid. This can dissociate and form either a Bicarbonate ion and a hydrogen ion or it can for a carbonate ion and two hydrogen ions. If the water is too basic it will move to produce more bicarbonate/hydrogen or carbonate/2hydrogen ions. If the water is too acidic it will move to produce carbonic acid and then carbon dioxide and water.

All you have to do is look at the amount of funding that goes to climate """""""research""""""" and the complete and utter lack of conclusive results to tell you that something isn't right.

With all that money you think they would have one falsifiable repeatable scientific theory, and yet there is absolutely none.

But here, take a look at this graph showing ambient CO2 concentration and correlate that with rising temperature and you have a smoking gun.

Except that CO2 change always increases AFTER temperature change increases.

>Greenhouse gases and carbon concentrations aren't a theory

Do they pay you to be an oil industry shill or do you do it for free?

You right wing cuckfucks are literally everything you claim to hate.

It's like any religion, there are true believers, prophecies of doom churned out by armies of clergy, heretics and tithes. There is nothing new under the sun and history repeats, first as tragedy and secondly as farce.

The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is diminishes at a logarithmic rate.

Evolution's just a theory! Where's the missing link???

Nice straw man, a true Veeky Forumsentist and not at all the cancer that is killing Veeky Forums.

yes, that's why climate sensitivity is always expressed in terms of doublings of CO2

Stopped watching when he tried to throw in the idea that only the government can prevent catastrophic climate change. What a complete idiot.

im so glad a /pol/ approved source has debunked science

>Carbon dioxide in the water forms carbonic acid. This can dissociate and form either a Bicarbonate ion and a hydrogen ion or it can for a carbonate ion and two hydrogen ions. If the water is too basic it will move to produce more bicarbonate/hydrogen or carbonate/2hydrogen ions. If the water is too acidic it will move to produce carbonic acid and then carbon dioxide and water.

i hope arent trying to say "the ocean cant be acidified because there's a buffer"

holy shit i really really hope you arent that retarded.

grist.org/series/skeptics/
Literally every single point you've given has already been addressed ages ago. This guy has done nothing but put a bunch of already debunked denier arguments into a video with pop culture references mixed in between to catch a goldfish's attention. How embarrassing for you.

97% consensus is fake.. it's more like 99%. Some autist just made a poll and now people are pretending it's a scandal. Just look up the IPCC consensus.

Ice sheets are melting in most of the world, although a few in antarctica are gaining ice. That doesn't mean there's no melting

I don't have knowledge for the polar bear thing

Our models have been accurate

Typical /pol/ science denial.

We should've gotten rid of /pol/ years ago

a board full of anime porn and nerd shit shouldn't have let a bunch of asshole fascists fester and then go try to derail every other board with their conspiracy bullshit

I don't even think it's much more than a year or two old.

>Except that CO2 change always increases AFTER temperature change increases.
That's a very misleading statement. CO2 increases after temperature increases AND temperature increases after CO2 increases. Historically, changes in temperature caused by orbital eccentricity of the earth have jumpstarted this positive feedback loop, but not today.

no man its a CONSPIRACY by the JEW GOVERNMENT to oppress poor defenseless oil companies that just want to make a living

>make predictions
>be wrong
>make more predictions based on the exact same "science"
>be wrong again
>repeat this 100 times, never failing to reject the null hypothesis

Alarmists, everyone.

Oh I'm sorry, did you think science is 100% right all the time like some kind of religion?

They're explaining what a buffer does.

And there's a lot of it in the ocean.

And Carbonic acid is extremely weak.

As a scientist, of course I didn't. But when the evidence contradicts your hypothesis over and over, you should revisit it, not stick to it forever.

Either way, climate science isn't a science. There's no control Earth.

If you have nothing of value to say and just want to point me to x to try to save face, you can admit it. It will make this easier.

>There's no control Earth.
What did he mean by this?

>you should revisit it
It has been revisited and it's still more accurate than any model anyone else has come up with.

That we should roll over and accept defeat because we can't be entirely sure of our climate models.

Yeah I agree completely. that's why physics should have thrown out the idea of an atom as soon as they discovered elections don't orbit the nucleus the same way the moon orbits the earth. Theoretical physicists are in a fucking conspiracy.

>the moon orbits the earth
You fool, there is no control earth so we cannot test this "theory" of yours.

guys we just want to teach the controversy

fucking atom alarmists

all of them were jews too, think about it people

the white race will only survive if we reject gay liberal "science" and shart in mart the way White Jesus intended

Heh....

But yeah, it means that there's no way one can attribute change to any particular changing variable, since there's no control Earth to confirm that conditions wouldn't have changed had said variable not changed.

Not saying there's nothing we can learn about climate but it's so fucking chaotic, as far as our limited ability to monitor it is concerned, that our models start to break down almost instantly.

Weather models have higher resolution than climate projection models (due to computational constraints) and weather models, as we all know, fail within days. Why should climate projections models therefore be believed? Especially when they fail to include things like the fucking SUN (yes, you read that correctly).

...

>null hypothesis
nice meme
>make no predictions at all
>claim to be right

>some models are only accurate over the short term
>therefore no models can be accurate over the long term

So you've already embarassed yourself by parroting bullshit pseudoscience put forward by paid shills, and now we've reached the part where you're basically admitting you know nothing about science beyond your high school biology class.

You have two options here.

You can have a bit of humility and go "Yeah I guess I was being dumb" because it's clear to everyone here you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Or you can dig in, try to salvage your reputation with some bullshit "fine it's not wrong but we have no idea if it's right or not!!!! it's all relative!!!! makes u think!" generalizations, and then I can ask you if you know what a differential equation is and embarass you further.

Your choice

"Spectroscopic studies of carbonic acid[edit]
Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water. In the absence of water, the dissociation of gaseous carbonic acid is predicted to be very slow, with a half-life of 180,000 years.[11] This may only apply to isolated carbonic acid molecules, however, as it has been predicted to catalyze its own decomposition.[12]

The longstanding belief was that pure carbonic acid cannot be obtained at room temperatures (about 20 °C, or about 70 °F) due to its catalytic destruction by water.[11] It has been discovered that it can be generated by exposing a frozen mixture of water and carbon dioxide to high-energy radiation and then warming to remove the excess water. The carbonic acid that remains is characterized by infrared spectroscopy. The fact that the carbonic acid was prepared by irradiating a solid H2O + CO2 mixture may suggest that H2CO3 might be found in outer space, where frozen ices of H2O and CO2 are common, as are cosmic rays and ultraviolet light, to help them react.[11] The same carbonic acid polymorph (denoted beta-carbonic acid) was prepared by heating alternating layers of glassy aqueous solutions of bicarbonate and acid in vacuum, which causes protonation of bicarbonate, followed by removal of the solvent. The previously suggested alpha-carbonic acid, which was prepared by the same technique using methanol rather than water as a solvent was shown to be a monomethyl ester CH3OCOOH.[13]" Wiki

As I understand it carbonic acid isn't stable in the presence of h20 and that any reaction involving it in an open system (esp with atmosphere) leads to its quick decay am I misunderstanding this?

P.s. I'm not the poster you're replying too, just someone interested in the chemistry of Carbonic acid not climate change inherently.

Has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Nice try but you lose.

Negative. And saying that "we can't be entirely sure of our climate models" betrays an immense ignorance with respect to climate models. It would be better to say "we have no fucking clue what we're talking about and we're getting everything wrong."

The planet hasn't warmed for almost 20 years, according to satellite data. Our models did not predict this. The response, as this was happening, has been to incrementally increase the amount of time necessary for the planet to go without warming in order to differentiate a signal from the noise.

The silence from the scientific community on this point is becoming deafening.

At this point, throwing darts at a board might be more accurate. See, pic related. The trend extends on roughly the same path to 2016.

>The silence from the scientific community on this point is becoming deafening.

maybe that should give you a hint
most people would realize that the "scientific community" is smarter than them or at least knows what the fuck they're talking about

but your mommy told you that you were a special snowflake so clearly they weren't anticipating a free thinker like you

please though you should send a tweet to the scientific community pointing out this thing that they've all been ignoring that I'm sure nobody has recognized

>But yeah, it means that there's no way one can attribute change to any particular changing variable, since there's no control Earth to confirm that conditions wouldn't have changed had said variable not changed.
Yeah except we have brains that allow us to determine what causes what through reason. There's this thing called the greenhouse effect which is simple physics we don't need a "control earth" for. We also have this thing called spectroscopy which allows us to directly measure the amounts of infrared heat being radiated from each type of gas in the atmosphere. We can also figure out how much CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere by measuring isotope ratios. It's almost like there's this entire field of science which studies the climate, produces models that describe what was studied, and then make predictions based on those models, all without a "control earth". Amazing isn't it?

You said basically nothing with your post except:

>some models are only accurate over the short term
>therefore no models can be accurate over the long term

First, I have a post-secondary science degree. Not that I think it will impress you but you seem to think I don't so, you're wrong.

Anyway, you completely failed to understand the point. What you said wasn't my argument. I said, the models with better resolution fail within days but you're being asked to have faith in models with lower resolution that are meant to make predictions on the order of decades into the future.

You would be pretty stupid to do this.

You understand the word resolution in this context, right? The climate is divided into cells for the purpose of computational modelling. The projection models use bigger cells (less definition, less accuracy) because the timescales along which they're meant to compute are too long for our current technological reality. There's a reason this stuff is done with supercomputers.

but like we can't predict specific rainfall patterns exactly so that means we can't predict overall temperature changes across the entire globe!

and if global warming is real why is it cold???????? LOL AL GORE XD

>I said, the models with better resolution fail within days but you're being asked to have faith in models with lower resolution that are meant to make predictions on the order of decades into the future.
>You would be pretty stupid to do this.
I guess your post secondary education didn't include a class on ergodicity?

>I have a post-secondary science degree
When people say "science degree" instead of what their degree is in it's because the "science" is either an embarrassing one, an unimpressive one, or one that's not relevant in the slightest.

In your case I'm betting all three.

I like how this one removed all the labels from the graph so that it can't be debunked. How can you argue with a bunch of lines on a graph? Well I guess we'll just have to take your word that it proves climatology never gets anything right.

>The planet hasn't warmed for almost 20 years, according to satellite data.
This an irrelevancy, and false to boot. You don't get to pick and arbitrary periods of time so that you can create whatever trend you want. And it has been warming for 20 years anyway:

woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend

global temperature models have less resolution than local weather models because the thing they're actually fucking modeling is on a larger scale

You're still saying the equivalent of "we can't predict the weather over days so why would I trust someone to predict planetary motion over decades"

>post-secondary science degree
field or gtfo. If you don't answer I'm going to go with Food Science.

You actually think scientists are dumb enough to not consider the sun, you're so dumb it's actually kind of cute.

>The planet hasn't warmed for almost 20 years
Holy shit you are so dumb it's actually getting a little scary data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Not only that but you just said scientists don't take into account the sun in their models, so reality should be even hotter than the models right? A little consistency is all I'm asking for.

Link to the scientific paper containing that graph or I'm calling bullshit, every time I ask about this graph in particular and you never give an answer for it.

>Yeah except we have brains that allow us to determine what causes what through reason.

The same brains that came up with Lisenkoism and Phrenology. These things "made sense" to a lot of people. The former got a lot of people killed, as a matter of fact.

Science isn't "this 'makes sense' therefore it's true."

Yes, we know lots of things. And none of those things prove man's CO2 emissions (which are currently only about 5% of CO2, with 95% being naturally occuring) are the primary driver of the slight warming we've seen over recent decades. Why? Because there's no control. That's how scientific experiments work. So no, it's not "amazing". You can't do shit without a control.

Go try to do an experiment about the effects of a drug without a control group. See how much the scientific community agrees that you can conduct it "all without a control". I'll be here, waiting to laugh.

And by the way, the evidence I have? Your perpetually failing predictions. Where are those 200 million climate refugees again? Thought they were supposed to be here by 2010.

Upon further research I've found that suphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide are the ones making acid rain acidic not co2 these chemical agents are correspondingly released with co2 usually but carbonic acid doesn't seem to really play a role in climactic change.

>Where are those 200 million climate refugees again? Thought they were supposed to be here by 2010.
I thought /pol/ was in the midst of crying about a refugee crisis and has been for some time?

>The planet hasn't warmed for almost 20 years, according to satellite data.
1998 was an el nino you fucking moron. And it's been hotter than that since 2005.
>I know nothing about the climate therefore nobody does!

>Ocean acidification is not nonsense
It is.

Historic measurements of pH shit on the idea that CO2 is the pivot for acidity.

So I just looked up who started throwing this graph around with the labels removed

Seems like it was Patrick J. Michaels who has been denying climate change for decades and keeps changing his tune about it while he cherrypicks

wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/
>On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[37] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[38]
>Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[39] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[40]

I guess in /pol/ land, writing a bunch of books about climate change being a conspiracy isn't "alarmist", and taking money from oil companies to deny science and mischaracterize studies isn't "shilling."

>global temperature models have less resolution than local weather models because the thing they're actually fucking modeling is on a larger scale

Basically what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me that you're wrong.

>You're still saying the equivalent of "we can't predict the weather over days so why would I trust someone to predict planetary motion over decades"

Wrong. Planetary motion is just one factor. We're talking about a massive, chaotic system that cannot be modelled. If a model with higher definition fails within days, how can you argue one with lower definition will be accurate for decades? You sound like a fucking retard.

>You actually think scientists are dumb enough to not consider the sun, you're so dumb it's actually kind of cute.

I don't think that. The models currently used do not include The Sun. FACT. They also don't include the wind, volcanoes, ocean oscillations, El Nino and others factors. These are FACTS.

>Holy shit you are so dumb it's actually getting a little scary

AHAHAHAHA GISS data is taken using surface instruments, you dumb fuck. It says it RIGHT THERE in your own fucking source. Learn to read, god damn....

>Posting a rebuttal by Gavin Schmidt

Fucking lol.

"Christy counters that “both the reference period and the alleged error analysis that I did were appropriate”. He points to an analysis by climate statistician Steve McIntyre on the ClimateAudit.org blog as supporting his case. Christy added that “when Schmidt’s “sleight of hand” is considered, his analysis SUPPORTS my results” – a reference to Schmidt’s choice of baseline and data for the comparison which has the effect of minimising the difference between observations and models."

Gavin stuck his hand up and got smacked down.

And my BSc is in fucking owning you 2(3?) kids. Which I've done thoroughly.

Try sleeping tonight. You won't be able to.

>1998 was an el nino you fucking moron. And it's been hotter than that since 2005.

That figure doesn't make use of the warm El Nino year. It makes of the cold year before it.

LOL fucking owned.

It wasn't Michaels. It was Jon Christy.

Owned again.

>And my BSc is in fucking owning you 2(3?) kids. Which I've done thoroughly.
If I ignore the important parts of posts and important posts altogether and say I'm winning then surely I'm winning :^)

>The same brains that came up with Lisenkoism and Phrenology.
No, I think those brains are dead. But keep beating that (literally) dead horse.

>Science isn't "this 'makes sense' therefore it's true."
No, science is, "this makes sense and correlates with the data", therefore it's probably true. There isn't much else.

>Yes, we know lots of things. And none of those things prove man's CO2 emissions (which are currently only about 5% of CO2, with 95% being naturally occuring) are the primary driver of the slight warming we've seen over recent decades.
Well first of all, the idea that man-made emissions are only 5% of emissions ignores the fact that nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, while man does not. Yet another misleading statement with no substance behind it, with the sole purpose of confusing people. How many times have you repeated this meme and had this explained to you? You know it's false, but you do it anyway. You have no integrity and no basis to talk about what's scientific and what's not.

Anyway, I just explained a few basic reasons why we know man-made emissions are the main cause of warming. Instead of confronting them, you simply claimed they do not show what they clearly show.

>You can't do shit without a control.
A control of what? You don't need a control earth to do chemistry. You don't need a control earth to do physics. You don't need a control earth to do biology. All of these fields determine facts about the earth everyday. All of these fields create models that explain what is happening on the earth. Yet none require a control earth. You don't need a control earth to do climatology, because it's based on empirical data of the earth and models based on facts derived from physics and chemistry.

Anyway

>"Christy counters that “both the reference period and the alleged error analysis that I did were appropriate”. He points to an analysis by climate statistician Steve McIntyre on the ClimateAudit.org blog as supporting his case.
Well I guess that settles it, Christy's friend says he did the baseline correctly. Can't argue with that brilliant response.

Oh, except he focuses on the least important criticism, ignoring the fact that he didn't give error bars which show the models are in agreement with the data, and that most of the "models" are the same model with incorrect initial data, and that his data is inappropriately averaged to hide disagreement, and that no one gives a fuck about the troposhpere, etc. Yeah, you sure did "school me" by responding "nuh uh" to one point and ignoring every other point.

Can't we just dump reflective particles into the atmosphere?

Its been removed before, as well. This shit has a tendency to hit a sort of critical mass, then ebb. This year we got fucked because of the election and fucking trump.

Crowder makes a number of misleading arguments. I wouldn't call it intentional but definitely misinformed.

Science is the method we use to reduce our biases. My point in saying that is that it is clear that Crowder attempted to 'debunk' Climate Change claims by solely looking into contrarian sources.

For example, he used a study regarding the Cook climate consensus study that completely misrepresented the abstract.

He also uses a study by NASA that shows the ice sheets increasing in size. It is clear he didn't bother to read the study because if he did he would have noticed this paragraph-

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

He's a comedian so it is funny how he says he's 'skeptical' about climate change. The joke is that being skeptical implies he is critically thinking about it.

I'm was not talking about the figure in that post, I would never acknowledge a figure that removed it's own labels.

>LOL fucking owned.
Next I'm sure you're just gonna say you were trolling all along.