Existential Crisis?

Experience
Context

>This means nothing without any input from experts who we know are experts
You make it sound like this is special knowledge that can only be unlocked by a priestly class.

When he points out flaws, the response is to say that is incorrect because of all these sets of data, and these different analyses of that data. The response shouldn't be you are not an expert I won't listen to you.

I'm not saying listen to anyone in some absolutist terms, but a Princeton professor of physics and spectroscopy isn't the same as Uncle Ray, who heard something on Rush Limbaugh.

>Yes, that is one fact that climatology is based on. What about all the rest? Do you actually think like this or are you just trolling?

Yes I am aware that it is much more complicated than that. But there is no need to go through everything. But turn this on its head. What concept involved in climate studies do you think is just simply beyond this professor's grasp?

>All science when it comes down to it is applied physics.

I guess this guy should be an expert on everything. Genetics, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, freshwater ecology, rheology, geopolymer ceramic fabrication, let's just ask him instead

>Physicists are magic and can understand everything!
Yeah this is how we know you're from /pol/

>You make it sound like this is special knowledge that can only be unlocked by a priestly class.

You make it sound like your opponents views can be likened to fanatical religion while your views are the paragon of egalitarianism.

I wonder if this is based on reality or just an arguing technique.

>but a Princeton professor of physics and spectroscopy isn't the same as Uncle Ray, who heard something on Rush Limbaugh.

And he's not the same as a climate scientist either.

What concepts about AGW theory do you think that this particular professor does not understand or can not understand?

Please be specific as possible.

>And he's not the same as a climate scientist either.
I'll refer you to my above post.

The burden of proof lies with you. What makes you think he is qualified?

>You make it sound like this is special knowledge that can only be unlocked by a priestly class.
No, it's just how science works, you moron. There is a reason science is heavily specialized into various fields. This isn't the era of "natural philophers."

>When he points out flaws, the response is to say that is incorrect because of all these sets of data, and these different analyses of that data.
OK, present his arguments in text form and I guarantee you they can be debunked.

>The response shouldn't be you are not an expert I won't listen to you.
I will listen to you even if you're not an expert. I won't waste my time watching a youtube video by a nobody.

>I'm not saying listen to anyone in some absolutist terms, but a Princeton professor of physics and spectroscopy isn't the same as Uncle Ray, who heard something on Rush Limbaugh.
No they aren't the same, but their fake skepticism probably comes from the same conspiracy logic angle.

>What concept involved in climate studies do you think is just simply beyond this professor's grasp?
It's not that it's *beyond* his grasp, it's that he hasn't grasped it. Because he's talking with Stefan Memeneux on Youtube instead of publishing a paper debunking AGW. If you want me to treat him as a scientist then his arguments should be on the level of a scientist. If you want me to treat him as another crank, then post a youtube video.

>No, it's just how science works, you moron. There is a reason science is heavily specialized into various fields. This isn't the era of "natural philophers."
I'm not saying listen to Stefan, but rather his guest, who is a professor of physics.

Some of you other points could be addressed by watching what the professor actually mentions.

>It's not that it's *beyond* his grasp, it's that he hasn't grasped it. Because he's talking with Stefan Memeneux on Youtube instead of publishing a paper debunking AGW. If you want me to treat him as a scientist then his arguments should be on the level of a scientist. If you want me to treat him as another crank, then post a youtube video.

Well speaking of publishing a paper, there was an slightly earlier episode with another person who actually has written a paper and is in the process of getting it peer-reviewed for a publication.

youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s&t=14s

Fair warning, the guy is Lord Monckton. But again I urge you to watch the points he is making. He isn't denying global warming, just pointing out that that the data makes it look like we won't see runaway catastrophic climate change because the feedback loops aren't that responsive.

The specific thing that his paper seems to focus on is that the model used by most of the climate science community to predict how much feedback would be seen is based on a flawed implementation of a formula to predict the feedback.

Well it's possible that the mechanism of evolution was planned. Don't pretend to know more than you really know.

if you do decide to watch the video in this post, after about 50 minutes it does become political.

Hey Jake! You didn't tell me you used 4chin.

>Well it's possible that the mechanism of evolution was planned
there's a difference between believing in theistic guided evolution and outright denying it you mong.

>I'm not saying listen to Stefan, but rather his guest, who is a professor of physics.
Yes, where did I say otherwise? I'm talking about the physicist.

>Well speaking of publishing a paper, there was an slightly earlier episode with another person who actually has written a paper and is in the process of getting it peer-reviewed for a publication.
Good luck with that. Monckton is a bufoon.

>He isn't denying global warming, just pointing out that that the data makes it look like we won't see runaway catastrophic climate change because the feedback loops aren't that responsive.
Which is a strawman.

>The specific thing that his paper seems to focus on is that the model used by most of the climate science community to predict how much feedback would be seen is based on a flawed implementation of a formula to predict the feedback.
Which is wrong. Since you like youtube videos so much:

youtube.com/watch?v=ozn3Ki7pBr4

wat?

>>The specific thing that his paper seems to focus on is that the model used by most of the climate science community to predict how much feedback would be seen is based on a flawed implementation of a formula to predict the feedback.
>Which is wrong. Since you like youtube videos so much:

I did watch the video. And despite his apparent confusion of forcing and sensitivity in his one paper, the outcome on the total warming is the same regardless if you divide the forcing or sensitivity by three, which the Lindzen paper seemed to suggest should be done to the sensitivity.

If you watch the videos though, the point they seem to be making is that it is not just models they have produced that indicate less warming, but also the data from the satellite networks, as well as the Argo buoy system.

Over the last hundred years or so we have gone from about 270 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm and seen a deviation in global average surface temperature of about .8 degrees. This is close to the expected temperature change from purely changes in CO2 temp without any feedback loops. This doesn't look that scary.

The amount of butthurt over the ridiculous question that is global warming in this board is incredible. It wasn't like this, the fuck happened?
>i dont agree with you go back to pol maymay

>Over the last hundred years or so we have gone from about 270 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm and seen a deviation in global average surface temperature of about .8 degrees. This is close to the expected temperature change from purely changes in CO2 temp without any feedback loops.
Hitting equilibria is something that should take hundreds of years, so the fact we've passed the non-amplified equilibrium point when CO2 levels are rising at an accelerating rate is pretty solid grounds to believe that there's strong positive feedback.

Also, we've seen way more than 0.8C warming in the last 100 years (going by GISTEMP, were at about +1.1). Where did you find that number?

>This doesn't look that scary.
It is scary. What it "looks like" to you is basically irrelevant.

>so the fact we've passed the non-amplified equilibrium point when CO2 levels are rising at an accelerating rate is pretty solid grounds to believe that there's strong positive feedback.

but the past 15-20 years or so have been pretty flat in measuring global average surface temps, if there really was a risk from runaway positive feedback loops, we should be seeing temps going up at an increasing rate, or at least linearly. But the temps have been basically logarithmic when you look at about 1980 forward. (before you accuse me of cherry picking data sets, I chose that basic time frame because we had global satellite coverage from that point on to record surface temps globally.)

If the dropping off of warming looks more like a warming pattern associated with purely CO2 rather than other feedbacks being involved. Which does have a well-established warming pattern of about a degree per doubling of CO2.

Everyone was alarmed at 400 ppm, but going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will be a lot harder, and going from 800 ppm to 1600 ppm ridiculously hard. Because lots of the carbon sinks become more effective at higher CO2 concentrations.

When I say it doesn't look scary, I mean to say I haven't noticed any appreciable differences in our environment that pose signifcant risks to humanity or society given the warming we've seen.

Also we think there has been about a 3 degree variation in temps over the past several hundred thousand years. If one hundred years from now humanity sees a CO2 level of 600 ppm and about a 1.3 degree temp anomaly I am not too worried for society.

>Also, we've seen way more than 0.8C warming in the last 100 years

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

>According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

>but the past 15-20 years or so have been pretty flat in measuring global average surface temps
What? No they haven't, look at the graph I posted.

>we should be seeing temps going up at an increasing rate, or at least linearly. But the temps have been basically logarithmic when you look at about 1980 forward.
Can you cite any source that claims that?

>Everyone was alarmed at 400 ppm, but going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will be a lot harder, and going from 800 ppm to 1600 ppm ridiculously hard.
How bad should we let the fire get before we try and put the building out?
Also, 1600ppm would be fucking terrifying.

>When I say it doesn't look scary, I mean to say I haven't noticed any appreciable differences in our environment that pose signifcant risks to humanity or society given the warming we've seen.
What do you mean by you "haven't noticed any appreciable differences in our environment". Are you just looking out of your window?
Look into corral bleaching, or the collapse of Australian farming, or any of the other impacts of global warming that are being studied.

>Also we think there has been about a 3 degree variation in temps over the past several hundred thousand years.
So what? We weren't doing much farming in the previous interglacial.

>If one hundred years from now humanity sees a CO2 level of 600 ppm and about a 1.3 degree temp anomaly
We're currently on track to see that much warming inside decade, not a hundred years.

>According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
Okay, but 1880 wasn't 100 years ago.

>Okay, but 1880 wasn't 100 years ago.
your a fucking stickler arnt you? the change is not going to be that much worse 3 years from now

>If you watch the videos though, the point they seem to be making is that it is not just models they have produced that indicate less warming, but also the data from the satellite networks, as well as the Argo buoy system.
This is just the old denier trick of cherrypicking a small run where warming is lower and then claiming that the sensitivity must be low. So by magic you get to divide the trend in all of the data by 3 so that it fits an arbitrarily chosen morsel. It's patent nonsense. The foundational technique of the denier is cherrypicking. It's inherent to practically every argument you fools make.

That's a very reasonable assessment. Maybe 1600 ppm is out of reach and a simplified calculation with satellite data over the last two decades leads to a ∆T of 1±0.3 K for 800 ppm. It's also good to remember that "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (IPCC)

I see this hasn't been posted yet. Enjoy.