Is global warming real?

is global warming real?

Other urls found in this thread:

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/totally-bat-shit-crazy-anthony-watts.html
freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/
freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR.pdf
dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Brought to by those that want to tax you more, and who said that there would be a lot of countries underwater by now.

Climate alarmism is big business.

this is an issue that has been under heavy debate for a long time and i'm wondering where Veeky Forums stands on this issue

How can global warming be real when the earth being a globe isn't real?

Yes. And it's caused by humans.

Fuck off. There's nothing to debate anymore.

Yes

>is global warming real?
Yes.

>Brought to by those that want to tax you more
That makes no sense.
Firstly, governments don't have particularly strong control over what public researchers publish.
Secondly, the people making funding decisions don't benefit from increased taxation - they actually often suffer for it, thanks to industry lobbying.
Thirdly, governments already have the authority to raise taxes: if they wanted more money, they wouldn't need to construct a massive international conspiracy to trick people into giving to them.

>There's nothing to debate anymore.
They're be plenty to debate so long as PR companies keep getting paid to push denial.

It is true that there are people who have taken the scientific fact of global warming and twisted it and exaggerated it to their own benefit, to the encumbrance of science.

Yes.

No, listen to the lobbyists who sell you gas and oil. Trustworthy people

The deniers have slowly gone from "its not HAPPENING!" to "its not happening because of HUMAN activity".

And literally all of them get their salaries from oil and gas companies.

It is

The problem is that the hippies who imply that bullshit tend to apply a very stagnant development of technology, implying we'd have the exact same technology which is exactly dependent on coal as it currently is in a few decades. That we'd have the same pollution effect without ANY advances in green technology whatsoever. They like to ignore the ever-growing industry of electric cars and alternative energy in their equations, pretending that not regulating or taxing the fuck out of half of our companies RIGHT NOW will kill Earth permanently. And then if you attempt to deny their retardation, you're automatically a conspiracy theorist who denies global warming in general and probably vote drumpf as well

It surely is rational

Fuck sake can some fuck just put a general summary of global warming on the sticky. You get one of these fucks every day.

I think "sc2ing it" will be the kind of phrase used decades from now.

It's a Veeky Forums meme like flat earth.

Yes, though the term results in confusion.

Unfortunately, most people see extreme winters and say "see, the world can't be getting warmer" because they're only concerned with local effects, not global occurrences. They see people swap to the term "climate change" to try and clarify that the effects of GW are more complicated than they think, and instead believe this is because environmentalists are trying to make up some new schlock, because most of the world's amateur debate faggots actively avoid any credible source that doesn't agree with them when forming an opinion and refuse to even consider the validity of information that doesn't.

Unlike flat earth GW is false.

There are multiple observed states of denial that scientists have observed:

1. It's not getting warmer
2. It's getting warmer but it's not CO2
3. It's getting warmer because of CO2 but it's not man's fault
4. It's happening but it's not bad
5. It's happening and it's bad but fixing it will cost more
6. There is no objective morality, humans have no purpose, us dying is natural

My favourite is

>Did you know that humanity is only in charge of 3% of the total CO2 output?

You have to go back

Go home /pol/

number 6 masterrace here

samefag

It's real and it's caused by humans.

However, we can only be sure of the possibility of it actually affecting the climate.

We can map out those possibilities.

Without a positive water vapor feedback, we're looking at maximum warming of 1.2-1.7C. Which is within normal variation and therefore pretty much nothing.

The established science has moved from 'OMG we're gonna warm 8C' to 'OMG 1.5 C will cause all the weather patterns to chance and kill us all'. Which it won't. The denialists have taken this shift as evidence that the whole thing is bunk, which it isn't.

1.7C max. If all the cards fall correctly. Screenshot this.

>"Firstly, governments don't have particularly strong control over what public researchers publish."

you're part of the machine

He's right though. There are loads of topics scientists can't touch with a ten foot pole, but the reason isn't government meddling but rather norms and trends within the scientific community.

like?

>"but the reason isn't government meddling but rather norms and trends within the scientific community."

guess who influences the community and sets the "norms" :'( Everything is masked with a "government approved" sticker and everyone accepts it with facts and try to argue it with another "government approved" sticker. People like you are trained to be open minded in a closed box

Maybe.

Problem is, climate science is one hair away from being a pseudoscience. Climate change fails two important tests of a good scientific theory, namely falsifiability and being able to make good predictions. Even more worryingly, if you asked anyone in the academia if publish or perish climate (negative or inconclusive results being discouraged, people fudging or literally falsifying data, p-hacking and creative statistics etc) is a problem, you'd get various levels of yes. Not in climate science, mind you, climate science as the one of the most publicised, politically and ideologically involved sciences, is simply immune to such mundane issues.

Take climate sensitivity for an example. It has something of a 60% chance to be between 1.5 and 4.5, so it either needs a single doubling or three (2^3=8 times the increase) to reach 4.5C of warming. Never mind the other 40% or whatever percent that are out of that range. Great, only almost an order of magnitude.

Meanwhile you have the green faggots, borderline anarchoprimitivists, and doomsday con artists thriving on selling fear. Alternative to being a fucking hippy are "nothing is going on" shills. Great.

Interestingly enough, green fags are too busy being smug and morally superior to encourage research into methods of stopping the impeding destruction they claim. You'd think they are lobbying for investing hundreds of billions into iron seeding research. Nope, it's subsidies for Chinese made solar panels, shitty solar farms and other feelgoods.

But the USA government is full of oil shills. Why the fuck would it support climate change?

Climate science is easily falsifiable and had been successfully projecting global average surface temps and sea levels for decades. You're just spouting lies about a field you obviously know nothing about. The ease with which deniers lie in order to reach a conclusion convenient for their political ideology is startling.

>. You'd think they are lobbying for investing hundreds of billions into iron seeding research
To be fair, iron seeding is pretty fucking risky simple because it is next to impossible to actually gauge the potential ecological damage, but yeah, fission is much more viable than solar energy, and increasing the investment on fusion research should be a top priority.

When did that happen?
>1980
Hurr by 2000 most of the costal areas will be submerged
>1995
Hurr in 2008 lots of isles will be submerged
>2005
hurr in 2015 sea level will rise as fuck
>current year
We're all gonna die. Muh 6°C by 2030.

Nigga, I think you are mistaking sensationalist headlines with scientific study.

>Climate science is easily falsifiable
I'm all ears.
>and had been successfully projecting global average surface temps and sea levels for decades
Some of them, inside a high range of uncertainty. A metric shitload haven't.

You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability. You can claim it, and your claims can be criticised, but there's no way of conclusively falsifying the claim, aside of waiting for the claims to be wrong and you to come up with new claims.

Funny, you haven't written anything about my horrible lies about climate science being immune to regular academic bullshit.

True, but those are the people who believe that in 50 years there will be an huge extinction event, sea levels will rise dramatically and millions of lives and trillions of dollars will be lost, hunger due to droughts will decimate both human and animal populations etc. That sounds worth at least looking into it more, but no, humans are capable of completely fucking over the whole fucking planet and the only thing we should do is turn vegan and drive a prius. Seriously.

10 things that would falsify AGW:

ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/

>You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability
Deniers LOVE to ignore the fact that AGW is first and foremost a causative explanation for warming. It is not simply the claim that there is a statistical trend in temperatures and that this trend correlates with CO2. The greenhouse effect is eminently falsifiable. Its basic chemistry.

There is nothing substantive in the rest of your buzzword filled rant besides a statistically tortured rendition of climate sensitivity. The confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 does not mean that 4.5 is as likely as 1.5.

Because $$$. Fear is the most profitable thing in existence. They know it is a shamboozle but everyone will panic and donate to an organization or purchase "reusable bags" or something familiar which are 3 times as much as a regular bag or what ever is "recyclable"/Eco friendly

btw still me

Fuck you.

Oil is the most profitable thing in existence

user please. The money being made on the businesses who benefit from environmental "unfriendly" practices far outstrips what you'll make off "eco friendly bags".

Like, where do you think all the "climate change denial" data is coming from? It's just one big (or more likely, multiple big) misinformation and confusion campaigns sponsored by big businesses who have lot to lose on the regulations that climate change would cause.

Heck, why do you think climate change denial is more common in US than EU? It's because corporate shilling has always been stronger in the US than in the EU since the EU has way stronger government than the US.

People here get butthurt when anyone brings up An Inconvenient Truth, but the fact of the matter is that is what got most people to really give a shit about global warming/climate change/whatever it's called this week, and many of its biggest/most remembered claims have been total bullshit, like Kilimanjaro having no snow by 2015.

The fact new and burdensome regulations were passed to try and curb the effects of global warming naturally makes people suspicious. Massive boondoggles like Solyndra just make that worse.

tl;dr- tell the ridiculous alarmists to shut up if they're spouting bullshit.

And stop saying "it's not a debate" or "it's settled science," the former makes you sound like a jackass and the latter is an oxymoron.

I dunno. I wonder how much of the alarmist stuff is actually corporate falseflagging (look at these craaaazy headlines! That means everyone is just making shit up!).

For a lot of companies, paying a few shills to cause a ruckus is probably cheaper than having to change business practices because of new regulations.

That could be the case with some, but I highly doubt Al Gore is in that camp.

>Some of them, inside a high range of uncertainty. A metric shitload haven't.
Another baseless lie. Check the IPCC in 1990.

>tfw climate change deniers don't see that it's in our own interest to stop pouring CO2 into the atmosphere and Cadmium into our drinking water

>energy independence isn't enough of a reason to move away from fossil fuels

It's amazing that these retards manage to put their pants on in the morning.

I thought you accused 'denialists' of cherry picking starting points?

Can't provide a single piece of evidence that "most" projections are wrong? That's what I thought.

>>You are claiming there's a drift in a stochastic process, which is literally a Russell's teapot level of falsifiability
>Deniers LOVE to ignore the fact that AGW is first and foremost a causative explanation for warming. It is not simply the claim that there is a statistical trend in temperatures and that this trend correlates with CO2. The greenhouse effect is eminently falsifiable. Its basic chemistry.
Well thank fuck you can conflate CO2 greenhouse effect with the whole climate science because CO2 is the only variable amirite? Surely there isn't a host of other, quite unknown variables, like cloud albedo? What a retard, nobody is claiming basic building blocks of peer reviewed science are wrong, we're claiming that shitty blockhouse you've built has some issues.

> The confidence range of 1.5 to 4.5 does not mean that 4.5 is as likely as 1.5.
What the fuck does that even mean, you statistically semiliterate nigger? Estimated ranges go from 0.5 or something to fucking 12, with IPCC giving 60% probability of it being withing [1.5,4.5] range, other extremes being unlikely or very unlikely. From what are you inferring both the claim and the refutation you're providing?

>I dunno. I wonder how much of the alarmist stuff is actually corporate falseflagging
Yes I'm sure corpurashions pour millions into climate alarmist because there aren't enough hippies and scientifically semiliterate people who parrot whatever they are said is scientific consensus.
>hey guys, let's plant ridiculous climate alarmist articles, surely people would become suspicious about it
>"all icebergs everywhere to melt for the fifth time, scientists say"
>everybody completely buys into it, for the fifth time
What kind of a retard corporation would shoot themselves in the foot like that?

1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

5. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

****

21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

****

22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

****

23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

****

24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

****

25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

****

26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

****

27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

****

28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

****

30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

****

31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

****

32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

****

33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

****

34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

****

36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

****

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

****

41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007

****

44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

****

46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

****

47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

****

48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

****

49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

****

51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

****

52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

****

53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

Not the guy you're replying to, but I was wondering where the fuck you were getting all these from, if it was a list you kept yourself or what, but googling the first study brought up the link to this list:

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

I appreciate how this is a way to make a point but Jesus Christ, user.

>“Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
>Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/totally-bat-shit-crazy-anthony-watts.html

Well, he asked.

>blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/totally-bat-shit-crazy-anthony-watts.html
You can go look up every paper in that list, but just linking to someone saying 'nuh uh' is probably a better option huh.

>The people saying its real are scientists who study it
>The peoole saying its not real are owners of oil companies, news channels owned by these people, and people who watch that news
Really causes one's mind to ponder, doesn't it?

>Well thank fuck you can conflate CO2 greenhouse effect with the whole climate science because CO2 is the only variable amirite?
I'm sorry you don't understand what falsifiability means, even though you pretended to understand what it means. The greenhouse effect is a fundamental principle of AGW. Since it's falsifiable, so is AGW.

>What a retard, nobody is claiming basic building blocks of peer reviewed science are wrong, we're claiming that shitty blockhouse you've built has some issues.
You claimed it right here, moron:
>What the fuck does that even mean, you statistically semiliterate nigger?
What exactly is hard to understand about the statement? Getting angry at others because of your own stupidity does not hide your stupidity.

>Estimated ranges go from 0.5 or something to fucking 12, with IPCC giving 60% probability of it being withing [1.5,4.5] range, other extremes being unlikely or very unlikely.
Wow, it's almost like you get confidence ranges from ensembles! Oh I forgot, you have no idea how these figures were generated or what the confidence range actually means, because you are merely pretending to know what you're talking about.

>From what are you inferring both the claim and the refutation you're providing?
From the AR5 report. You should read it, since you cited a result from it.

He did, but you're just fast forwarding this thread to 404'ing by doing that.

He didn't just say "nuh uh" though. I was thinking some of the same things as I was reading the titles of the studies in that last. You can't say they didn't come true when they're talking about whats going to happen in 2050.

That doesn't make them all invalid, but it makes it much easier to disregard the rest of it when a chunk of it turns out to be bullshit.

You're naive as hell if you think there isn't massive pressure on climate scientists paid with government grants (which is ultimately YOUR money, mind you) to come up with reports that back up the current government's agenda.

The White House just had a DoE scientist fired because they went off script and gave too much of the truth to Congress about a study on low dose radiation, and the WH was worried Congress appropriating money to look into that further would take money away from studying climate change.

freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR.pdf

>the people who are for nuclear power tend to be climate change deniers
>the people who are against nuclear power tend to believe in climate scientists

I know I paint with a broad brush (especially with the latter comment) but it feels like no one fucking takes shit seriously, and that no one can be happy.

But arguing "ad populum" is fucking retarded for science. The science should stand on its own without needing to cite the number of scientists. I also think alarmists exaggerate the science and hurt the community with their 'boy who cried wolf' behavior.

I'll read all the papers when you read every paper supporting AGW. I think I'll finish first.

Until then, I don't think I'm going to bother when most of them are for predictions that can't be evaluated yet, and most of the rest are just Anthony lying about what's in them.

>Asked for evidence that most projections are wrong
>Posts list of allegedly failed predictions without calculating what proportion are wrong vs. right

Are climate deniers illiterate or do they think everyone else is?

You're thinking he didn't say 'nuh uh' because you didn't read the papers in question. Talking about 2050 or other points in the future does not mean 'well anything can happen man it's not there yet'. Data is not following the trends that the author established to make that claim. That's why it's in the list. You'd know that if you read the corresponding paper instead of just going with what 'felt right, man'.
I've read every paper supporting AGW published in all major English scientific journals and the few important ones that have been published in other languages (translated, mostly Chinese). Your turn.

>You're naive as hell if you think there isn't massive pressure on climate scientists paid with government grants (which is ultimately YOUR money, mind you) to come up with reports that back up the current government's agenda.
I can't wait to see all of these climatologists reversing their position and publishing that AGW is false now that Trump is president. That's how it works right?

Also, all those papers SUPPORT AGW you blathering illiterate syphilitic swine.

Point out the right ones user. Enlighten us.

Clearly they don't if they are predictions based on the theory that didn't come true. You do know how science works right?

So which is it? Do they disprove AGW or support it?

You can try to cover for your mistake, but everyone saw it. Pottery.

OK, so apparently you are illiterate. I'm saying that this does not tell us that publishing n amount of "failed" predictions does not tell us that most predictions are false, which is the statement being replied to. I could collect 10 black swans, but this tells us nothing about the proportion of black swans in the population, especially since by selecting to show only black swans, it's not a random sample.

You're an idiot. Where did I say they didn't support AGW? That's what YOU claimed.

I can understand why someone who is not familiar with science would make the mistake of conflating "making a prediction based on a theory" with "supporting a theory". The former implies that the author may agree with the theory, but a prediction by itself is not evidence. A *fulfilled* prediction may be evidence. Why would I ask you to read papers that make a prediction based on AGW, when I am trying to make you read papers that prove AGW?

Every single paper there was written in support of AGW. Point out where I claimed otherwise.
You're wondering why I would fast forward this thread to 404? Because anyone intelligent is afraid to discuss this, because doing so rationally would place them in the corner of 'race realists' and paid oil shills and they lack the moral integrity to be unafraid of that. This thread will yield nothing. This conversation has yielded nothing for a decade. The science has yielded nothing for a decade.

Want to look up a precedent for global action based on real science? Look up how we decided to phase out ozone destroying refrigerants at a time when the world was much, much more divided than it is now.

>Every single paper there was written in support of AGW.
I didn't ask you to read papers that were written by authors who agree with AGW, I asked you to read papers that support AGW.

Not to mention that I never claimed these papers didn't support AGW, YOU claimed that.

AGW has been proven for decades, you blathering ass. The issue is not whether AGW exists, but the extent of the warming effect and whether it's within normal variation. If the warming effect is within normal variation or within a variation that will not cause adverse effects worse than the cure, then it's FUCKING NOTHING and if you automatically exclude that possibility from consideration you're an academic coward.

>Talking about 2050 or other points in the future does not mean 'well anything can happen man it's not there yet'. Data is not following the trends that the author established to make that claim.

That's not what you said. You replied to "Can't provide a single piece of evidence that "most" projections are wrong?" with a list of studies that don't all seem to do that. Which ones specifically show a projection and then prove it wrong? I can't read all 107 of them, and from googling a few of them all I'm seeing is that same list of studies over and over copypasta'd on different sites.

>You'd know that if you read the corresponding paper instead of just going with what 'felt right, man'.

I admit I haven't read all those papers, but that's not what I said either.

Probably a few of them will, but not terribly many. What I was getting at is they won't get funding anymore because they won't have a client that wants to listen to them any more. It's not like all scientists agree AGW is real. They'll just hire new ones.

dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Im sure there is research funded by non-governmental sources which will continue, but as I understand it much of the funding for this comes from Uncle Sam. If that's wrong let me know.

If you don't want to discuss it fuck off and let people who do want to argue with each other do so.

You can read all 107 of them, and many more, and if you want to talk about this issue you need to. You can read a paper relatively fast, especially if you learn how to selectively focus on the data and conclusions that need focus and whir through the rest, reviewing as necessary. If you want to take this issue as a hobby it's an absolutely necessary skill.
I am discussing it. If you think 11 posts in a Veeky Forums global warming thread is going to push 11 good posts off of the thread you are very new to Veeky Forums. The vast majority of the people that browse Veeky Forums hid this thread hours ago.

Racist thread

>AGW has been proven for decades, you blathering ass. The issue is not whether AGW exists, but the extent of the warming effect and whether it's within normal variation.
Ah I see you're on stage 4 of climate change denial >If the warming effect is within normal variation
Well if you acknowledge that there is a warming trend caused by CO2 emissions, you've already acknowledged there is an abnormal variation, since natural climate variation is either random or cyclical. It doesn't trend in one direction continuously. Man does not have a natural stop, only man can consciously decide to stop.

As to the magnitude, yes the rate of warming is quite unprecedented. It appears that the climate has not or rarely had such an extreme rate of change. Why is this so hard to believe when the source of that change is unprecedented?

Bush Jr. wanted to undermine climatology as much as Trump. I don't think he managed to get funding reduced. All he managed to do was get embroiled in a minor scandal where his administration kept trying to push fringe papers into government reports.

Fuck off with your bullshit stages faggot
You've got to be some dumbass biology student. Climate variations range from high to low. If the warming effect falls within the high range then AGW is nothing but an interesting study on how industry affects global climate, not an emergency call for a global tax on industry. I'd bring up refrigerants but given your repetitive 'dis iz how sienz werkz man' statements you'd probably have to google what that is. It's what keeps your Zuma cold.

'It appears'
'Only man can consciously decide to stop'
'Ah'

Never mind you're just a faggot.

Not the guy you're replying to, and this is a little out of the scope of the topic of this thread but it's Veeky Forums so who gives a fuck.

What do you want to do about it? I'm not saying this to be a dick, it's an honest question.

Personally I think AGW is probably real, but I also think it's being used to line some pockets by people in various governments. I've heard over and over though how even if the US and Europe stopped outputting any carbon it wouldn't affect things at all since China and India are going to just do whatever they want anyway.

What is the environmentalist's dream scenario? Is what I've heard about us being fucked already just a meme or should we just focus on building a space-based sunshade or something? Fossil fuels will go away eventually anyway just because they're basically not a renewable resource at the rate we use them anyway. Subsidies for anything, not just green energy, rub me the wrong way.

Only an absolute fucking retard believes in global warming, only an idiot would believe the politicized bullshit that involves the whole "green" industry.

>What is the environmentalist's dream scenario?
Obviously its a global socialist government that reduces the world population to 1 billion, where most just live as agrarian serfs to benefit the few elite.
They would be part of the elite, ofc

Not the guy you replied to bi4cswgaf

The best solution would be to develop carbon neutral technologies that are better, not meme ones like wind and solar but molten salt nuclear with hydrogen generation plants that have a better ROE so that other countries naturally gravitate to that economy, reducing all of the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction, not just carbon.

>Climate variations range from high to low.
This is meaningless.

>If the warming effect falls within the high range then AGW is nothing but an interesting study on how industry affects global climate, not an emergency call for a global tax on industry.
How does that follow? AGW is or isn't an emergency depending on your sense of time and scale. It's not an emergency in the sense of a shooting or a heart attack. It's an emergency on the order of several decades involving costs which individual humans find hard to comprehend. It doesn't mean the end of humanity, it means the slow accumulation of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in costs from a more extreme climate and an ecology that can't adapt fast enough. So of course it's convenient for you to describe AGW as "alarmist" or "an emergency call" as a strawman, because the real thing doesn't look like that on a typical human scale.

It's more of an insurance accountant's emergency. They tell you you should take some minor steps to preserve a comfortable future, but you don't listen. Question is, why do you need to lie and claim that a minor tax would be catastrophic for industry if you actually have a rational argument against it?

While the two groups do overlap a lot, it's possible to be an environmentalist and not a Marxist Globalist.

There's no reason for that not to be the dream of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies too, as long as they're the ones that will be building the reactors, but that doesn't answer my question. I've heard multiple times that even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we're too far gone for it to make a difference. Is that bullshit or what? Like said I'm sure there are people out there that want us all to live like substance farmers, but that isn't the majority of people.

So what do they want?

If we're too far gone already, why waste time on wind and solar? Shouldn't we focus on something that will actually address the problem of warming?

>What do you want to do about it?
A small tax would reduce emissions enough to save many billions of dollars in future damage. Economists calculate an "optimal" carbon tax that maximizes the amount of money saved vs. lost to taxes. What's great is that this is simply the effect of having the tax. If the tax revenue is spent on research and technology, we can mitigate the damage even further. This can be done in individual countries and it would still save a certain amount of billions. But obviously it would be better to get every country to implement an optimal tax.

In addition, more funding should go to nuclear power, especially fusion, and other clean power sources since they will have to be developed anyway. You might not like subsidies, but's that's just how science is funded. And it's better than useless defense spending.

HAHAHA YOU'RE A FUCKING BIOLOGY STUDENT I BET IT'S MARINE BIOLOGY BECAUSE YOU LIKE DOLPHINS YOU FAGGOT

Wrong, math major currently in law school.

You should have stuck with the fucking dolphins then.

Nice argument.

Who's arguing? I'm just laughing at you at this point, mainly because of your hilarious insurance metaphor.