NOAA says Earth is warming

these charts are fiction
they even have sensors in africa/south america
they just make it up

they don't even**

Brainlet detected

Welp, looks like man made climate change is turning into the largest scientific fraud in human history.

And Trump got elected so all these bullshiters will be out of a job
Expect all the liberals to just deny they ever believed in it

Please read a book on climate change you nigger. Stop getting your information from blogs and /pol/

>margins for error
babby's new buzzphrase

>no it's not, la-la-laaa-laaa, I can't heeear you!
found the denialist

Note that GOP and Far-Right agrees, just that they rather protect Big Business as opposed to protecting the people.

Why are they for some big businesses and against others? Fisheries, clean water, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and many other big businesses are being damaged in the interest of fossil fuels. Why do you think this is?

Because the Fossil Fuel industries are the ones that were most threatened by both energy trends and environmental regulations; So they're the one spending the most cash on the GOP, out of the fear of the Government abolishing Fossil Fuels altogether.

Eh, you could just use globally covering LST data and reach the same conclusions. It's been done.

The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news is that it's not been formally promoted to an ECV. SST will be soon, and you can see the same trend - based on millions and millions of observations.

Who gives a shit
The planet will be fine who cares if humans die out we are a shitty species anyway

So then it isn't about big business, caring about big business is fine. The problem is the party enforces protectionism of those that are in their interests. Involving heavy government regulation is supposed to be what the party is against and they keep promising deregulation. They're breaking their own promises all the time by creating laws that limit the profit margins of big business which is highly unethical.

Look at all those missing thermometers.

Oh NOES! The pause has returned. Statistically insignificant warming for 18 years.
woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/every/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/trend/plot/

>Look at all those missing thermometers.
>Land-Only
>Missing thermometers in hard to reach places or otherwise barren places
herp derp.

>Eh, you could just use globally covering LST data and reach the same conclusions. It's been done.
>The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news is that it's not been formally promoted to an ECV.
The reason why satellite-derived LST doesn't show up in the news its shows almost NO WARMING IN 18 YEARS.
ftfy

woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2017/every/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2017/trend

i fucking hate faggots like you that think because you want the collapse of humanity you are displaying the highest degree of morality.

Kill yourself. Humans deserve a right on Earth. We will figure out how to make things work. You and all the genocidal freaks can fuck right off.

Yet the temperature anomalies for those non-instrumented areas are still graphed

The denying has begun.

Mind explaining why the researchers used 1998 as a starting point for this graph?

>The denying has begun.

So you deny the NOAA instrumentation graphic with huge areas that don't have instrumentation as shown here? So you deny that the RSS data shows statistically insignificant warming for 18 years? So you deny that the RSS land data shows almost no warming for 18 years? You certainly are a denier.

Why 18 years? What happened in 1998? I think you know this.

Mind explaining why the UN IPCC 1995 report showed no warming from 1958 to 1995?
web.archive.org/web/20100724163537/http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Is there a mandate to pronounce every year the hottest year regardless of the temperature?

There are plenty of publicly available temperature records in those gray areas, are they just lazy or avoiding them on purpose?

I remember taking one year of college level statistics and other courses that dealt with tolerances. It's more than specious, it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

Mods need to start nuking these threads. It's always a flame war full of shitposts.

>Takes year of college stats and is expert

El Nino caused the temperature spike this year and I have a strong hunch that next year will be cooler but still reflecting an overall warming trend.

kill yourselves cucks

Mind explaining why James Hansen (former head of NASA GISS) said there had been no CO2 induced warming in the Northern Hemisphere?
atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

I don't have anything to contribute here. I just wanted to stop by and point out that I'm massively autistic.

Figure 3.7a shows time-series of tropospheric temperature anomalies calculated from MS U data and radiosondes, and the global surface temperature for comparison. The global M S U tropospheric trend from 1979 to May 1995 was -0.06°C/decade, and that for the seasonal radiosonde data for the same period was -0.07°C/decade. However, if the transient effects of volcanoes and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (which can bias trends calculated from short
periods of data) are removed from the various time-series, positive trends become evident (e.g., 0.09°C/decade for MSU), in closer accord with surface data (Christy and McNider, 1994). Jones (1994b) calculated residual global
trends (after removal of volcanic and ENSO transients) for the 1979-93 period of .09°C/decade from MS U data, 0.10°C from 850-300 hPa radiosonde temperature updated from Angelí (1988), and 0.17°C from combined land-
surface air temperature and SST data. The differences between these trends were about half the differences between trends in the raw data (i.e., without the removal of the transient El Nino-Southern Oscillation and volcanic effects). So, apparent differences between surface and
tropospheric trends for 1979-1993 appear to be partly a result of the greater influence of volcanic eruptions and ENSO on tropospheric temperatures. Hansen et al. (1995) also demonstrate that natural variability can account for some of the apparent differences between surface and lower tropospheric data. For the longer period 1958 to 1993, Jones (1994b) found that the unadjusted and adjusted global trends from radiosonde and surface data were all between 0.08°C and 0.11°C/decade , reflecting the fact that longer-term trends are less likely to be biased by
transient volcanic and ENSO influences. The unadjusted radiosonde trend to May 1995 was 0.09°C/decade. The similarity of the trends since the late 1950s in the tropospheric and surface temperatures is evident in Figure 3.7a.

Funny thing is if you actually learn to read rather than spout beliefs you just might actually learn something other than intellectual dishonesty.

Because there wasn't any in the Northern hemisphere for that period of time would be my guess. Good thing this isn't called Northern warming eh?

Did you even bother to read the paper you linked? No, you just found something, cherrypicked a quote out of context (Oh how you "skeptics" absolutely love to cherrypick) and assumed that the paper was supporting your delusions.

Same shitposter in every thread, your arguments are consistently debunked and you never reply with evidence, or an actual argument. it's quite sad really, you have spent so much of your free time shilling in these threads and have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Perhaps you should simply read the actual abstract, you know, a summary of the ideas presented in the paper?

>Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.2C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the labeled Northwest Passage.

republican scum

You simply take one quote out of context with the rest of the paper, without reading the actual paper mind you, and believe you have an argument. It's really just sad. You also do know that further research into the greenhouse effect and CO2 warming, which has been done in the decades since this paper was published, shows that there is a lag between CO2 emissions and warming, right?

atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

Seriously man, how many times have you been blown the fuck out in these threads, yet you still come back to get yourself rekt every single time. Actually, I kind of admire that. You clearly are so delusional that you never give up, I guess that's "admirable" in a way that you are so stupid, that no amount of evidence or new information will change your retarded worldview.

>live in winter wonderland biome
>1980s as a kid, 12 feet of snow, -40F temps
>build snow castles and snow bunkers EVERYWHERE

Time passes.

>2010-2016
>no snow at all that lasts more than 1 day on the ground
>highest temp in January 2017, SEVENTY FIVE DEGREES
>historical high was 25F
>spring peeper frogs are chirping away right now
>trees are budding out
>roses are starting to bloom

The past 3 weeks has been nothing but shitty rain and mud. I've had to open my windows to cool my house down.

WTF WHAT THE FUCK MAN

Haven't you heard? The cool thing nowadays is to migrate North. All the other species and upper class are doing it.
independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/why-canada-is-the-best-haven-from-climate-change-860001.html

>Africa, Middle-East completely blue

RIP Yurope

Well I think that sort of error by NOAA or obfuscation, outright misleading publication, whatever you want to call it is preposterous to make by so called "scientists". These sorts of things are learned in highschool or maybe even advanced grade school. No conclusion can be drawn from that data other than there was no measurable or meaningful difference between those 2 years. There "difference" is one decimal place more irrelevant than the margin for error.

This is the sort of thing that really taints the warmist cult and their leaders. I even suspect earth is warming and still returning back to normals since the last glacial maximum but this garbage science has to be called out. Then again I haven't looked into the actual press release, perhaps it was more media spin than NOAA but that shouldn't happen either making the entire man made media warming industrial carbon complex suspect once again. If there is so much science to back it all up they wouldn't need to resort to these fear mongering tactics.

nigger what the fuck are you rambling about??Where the fuck do you take "advanced grade school"?? You mean like 8th fucking grade??

There were no fear mongering tactics. They came out and said "2016 is the warmest year on record." There was El Nino in the early part of the year, which they also touched on, that released heat into the atmosphere, amplifying the warming. God damn I'm going retarded trying to read your post.

>I even suspect earth is warming and still returning back to normals since the last glacial maximum
Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim, for a second I thought it was just your rambling conjecture! Thank you so much for completely debunking the evidence with your incredible feelings-based approach to science.

>but this garbage science has to be called out.
aka, stop disagreeing with my feelings! Stop presenting evidence that contradicts my biases! Stop it evil climate scientists!

>Then again I haven't looked into the actual press release
And once again the clueless shill proves he has no idea what he's talking about, just his "gut feeling" that everything is a conspiracy and that it "doesn't feel right." Thankfully we have something called the scientific process, and observational-based evidence to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming, not just feelings and emotions. But oh my, seems like you're the type of person who would rather have a scientific process based on emotions, rather than deductive reasoning. Ironic, considering how you make such baseless accusations of conspiracy.

>If there is so much science to back it all up they wouldn't need to resort to these fear mongering tactics.
Cite your sources, when and where do climate scientists result to "fear mongering." Please reference peer-reviewed literature that paints a picture of fear mongering, and explain in detail what you mean by this, because the media, or Al Gore for example, are not scientific experts.

Once again, another post consisting of nothing but conjecture and logical fallacy.
>The evidence presents something I disagree with! The evidence must be wrong! The scientists are all fraudulent because it disagrees with my opinions! I know! It's not even a real science because I say so! Checkmate atmospheric scientists! I'm so super smart I took statistics in college, what about you climate scientists? Fucking liberal cultists!

Politics and media are not science. Stop blaming scientists because you're too lazy to study and find out what's actually in the scientific literature. There's plenty of bullshit on both sides in the media and politics so blaming Democrats just means you're drinking the Republican kool-aid. Science is non-partisan.

To play devil's advocate, ideal science is non-partisan, but there are still biases in every scientific field. Not that I deny the evidence for climate change, but to say that all science is perfect and non-partisan is simply not true, even if the vast majority of it is. There's always been older scientists who are afraid of their ideas being challenged, and hold on to them as long as they can, until the evidence is over-whelming in causing a paradigm shift.

That said, climate science in general is very unfairly treated, by both sides of the political spectrum. Alarmists can exaggerate claims, while deniers can cherrypick and downplay the effects of climate change. The fact that climate science is so relevant to impacts on global economics and civilization on a whole really complicates the whole issue, and leads to it being widely politicized, even though most climate scientists are simply your typical scientists who wants to study a phenomenon in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms of it. This is why it's so hard to find a working solution to the issue, not only because climate change is in itself an incredibly complex and multi-variable science, but the potential impacts on our civilization worldwide, and the subsequent spending that will be required to offset the losses leads to so much political conflict, especially since this is something that occurs over decades, if not centuries to feel the full impact.

Climate change isn't the end of the world, but it could have such harmful effects on our civilization, but there are engineering solutions to any problem, I just hope that we can find them and alleviate the damages.

I am in the thread responding to the OP.
This is right from the link.
>This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.07°F (0.04°C)
This is not true, it is statistically no different than last year.
>According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious.
I am asking why would they do this? Why the drama? Why the embellishment?
Are you actually saying they are impartial "keepers of the data"? This is a problem that perhaps only retards to not understand.

Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim
Are you denying we had an ice age only 20k years ago, a shot geological time frame? Sauce it yourself.

As for the rest of your shitpost see the reply above.

>Science is non-partisan.
It doesn't look like it. There is no more a political 'science' than man made climate change for the simple reason taxes have been justified all over the globe and at all levels of government on the half baked theory already. Taxes are rarely repealed once installed on a population so because of this there is basically an entire media arm dedicated now to shoring up this theory with what looks to be a lot of fear mongering, questionable science and sheer political will to carry forward with the agenda regardless of the weather.

>I didn't bother to read anything you typed, just going to ignore all of it and claim it's a shitpost because I'm scared of criticism

It's all about who's willing to shell out more money to protect their own interests, and if people get in the way the corporations don't even give a damn.

>Thank god you have a mountain of scientific evidence to back up this claim
What claim are you referring to, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that climate sensitivity is a known phenomenon in climate science? The fact that we are in one of the most rapid warming events in recorded history, including paleoclimate data?
Do you deny that the current warming trend is faster than any other trend that we know of from paleoclimate data?
I never made any specific claims in my post, I was asking you to present evidence for your extremely vague claims of the science being misleading, or your "warming industrial carbon complex" (whatever this autistic bullshit means).

>Are you denying we had an ice age only 20k years ago, a shot geological time frame?
What does this have to do with anything? Your train of thought is very strange, what does an ice age 20,000 years ago have to do with the current correlation between fossil fuel emissions and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere? What does that have to do with evidence of radiative forcings in our climate system from anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Last time I checked, there was no human civilization digging up coal, petroleum and natural gas, refining and combusting the fuels, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in massive quantities 20,000 years ago. Do you deny that the rise in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, despite isotopic data which proves that it is from human activity?
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/?wpmp_tp=1

Educate yourself before you talk about things which you lack understanding.

For the last time, the current trend is completely unnatural. This is not pseudo-science, it is observational-based and testable evidence, you know, aka science.

I read it and responded appropriately.
I responded to the article by NOAA which is obviously biased fear mongering and inaccurately reporting 2016 was warmer than 2015, it was not. the article cites itself. I have no idea what that poster is going on about in the last paragraph but I am sticking to the article in question.

And just look at this map, paints out a picture of climate abnormalities and includes 'events' for plausible deniability because there is nothing abnormal about these events, they are normal weather events. As for the temperatures again they are embellishing the extent to which they are deviating from normal, which is basically not all when margins for error in the data are taken into account, and extremely suspect considering such a biased source is providing them.

Global warming is a good thing.

A good thing if you don't happen to be a person living in an area negatively effected by climate changes, such as you know, 70%+ of humanity.

Also, /POL/tards and far-right denies climate change because of jews.

I have to be honest. I used to just ignore this. Yeah, I would pay climate change lip service, but in the back of my mind I didn't _really_ care. But now it is slowly sinking in that this shit is starting to get serious.

What does an ice age only 20k years ago have to do with todays climate? I would suspect a lot, that is a very short geological time frame.

As for your obsession with CO2, obviously directly linked to fossil fuel and what this AGW meme is all about, controlling those fossil fuels, we know CO2 levels have been much higher without runaway warming and in fact if they get much lower we risk terminating much life on this planet.

What I believe is that CO2 is not the "poison" the AGW crowd makes it out to be. What I fear is if your crowd gets its way, the draconian and ignorant policies that will flow forth while not doing anything to restrict the use of the remaining fossil fuels, just decide who and more importantly, who doesn't get access to those. AGW looks like a religion to me not science, probably the most frightening ever yet invented, almost with a self imposed dark age built in!

Even then, that 70%+ will not just sit quietly in their houses and starve to death while the rest continue living peacefully. People always raid before they starve.

Do you know why there was an ice age 20k years ago? Climate scientists do.

>what I believe
>calling something else religion
You didn't just drink the kool-aid, you built a pool full of it and divEd right in.

>obsession with CO2
Every time you post, I am again astounded by your ignorance.
CO2 is one of the primary drivers of climate, especially the current trend.

>we know CO2 levels have been much higher without runaway warming and in fact if they get much lower we risk terminating much life on this planet.
Parroting things you don't understand once again.
Paleoclimate CO2 changes are far slower in the rate of increase compared to the nearly doubling of CO2 ppm in the past century. There are a variety of reasons the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past, CO2 being one of those reasons, but the thing people like you always fail to understand is that climate is incredibly complex, solar intensity has varied throughout Earth history, as have effects like continental positioning, ocean and circulation currents in the past Earth which have drastically altered the Earth's overall climate. You have to take into account milankovitch cycles, volcanism and other geological timescale variables in understanding paleoclimate. You ignore surface albedo, you ignore Ozone, you ignore water vapor, methane, etc. all when you are claiming that Earth was hotter in the past, as well as colder. The reasons for these warming and cooling periods in Earth's past are not just linked to CO2.

No one ever said that climate cannot change naturally, or that the current trend has zero natural influences, however the vast majority of the changes we are observing are due to human activity, >90%.

For example, Solar intensity (TSI) and solar irradiance is not correlated with the current climate trend, solar intensity has not changed enough to cause the observed atmospheric and oceanic warming.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
>Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700
from the surface magnetic flux
www2.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/aa6725-06.pdf

Somebody post a chart on Climate Debate and Doubt Factory PRONTO!

At times when CO2 was higher in the past, solar activity has been reduced. With reduced solar activity, comes a smaller greenhouse impact of increased atmospheric CO2. You have to actually study the radiative forcings of the atmospheric CO2 in context of the other variables, not just looking at the numbers and saying "higher CO2 means there must have been runaway greenhouse then!"

What about during the Pliocene, when CO2 levels were similar to what they are today, and the Earth was over 10 degrees Celsius warmer than today?
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11001099

Have you ever heard of the CO2-ice threshold for example?
science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

>What I believe is that CO2 is not the "poison" the AGW crowd makes it out to be
Thankfully, science doesn't care for your beliefs, or your feelings, it only requires that the evidence presented is from naturally observed phenomena and is testable. It's so ironic how your entire basis for being a "skeptic" relies on your "gut feelings," rather than an empirical, evidence-based approach that climate science actually uses. Thank fuck we don't have retards like you in charge of deciding the validity of science, as the evidence speaks for itself.
youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&index=28&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>AGW looks like a religion to me not science, probably the most frightening ever yet invented, almost with a self imposed dark age built in!
Only looks this way because you are such an ignoramus that you shy away from actually understanding the evidence. I don't think you will actually view a single link I've posted in this thread thus far, as it won't confirm your biases, and you're scared of being criticized for your "beliefs." How ironic that your entire premises for denying climate change relies solely on your belief system, like dare I say it, a religion, rather than an empirical, evidence based approach?

duly noted

Also, the entire concept that CO2 levels were higher in the past is laughable as an argument against AGW, for the reason that these periods of increased CO2 atmospheric levels are correlated with mass extinction level events, such as the Permo-triassic extinction event, which was the worst of the mass extinction events in Earth history:
pnas.org/content/111/9/3316.abstract
>The extinction occurred between 251.941 ± 0.037 and 251.880 ± 0.031 Mya, an interval of 60 ± 48 ka. Onset of a major reorganization of the carbon cycle immediately precedes the initiation of extinction and is punctuated by a sharp (3‰), short-lived negative spike in the isotopic composition of carbonate carbon.
The CO2 linked to the increased atmospheric levels in the Permian is likely from massive volcanic eruptions from Siberia, commonly known as the Siberian traps. It took millions of years for life to recover from this natural extinction event.
90% of all species died during this extinction event, keep that in mind. We are currently living in an anthropogenic extinction event caused by human activity, and it's only going to get worse due to climate change.

Other extinction events correlated with increased atmospheric CO2 include the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event:
science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6135/941

Are you really going to continue to push your feelings-based "CO2 was higher in the past!" narrative again, despite all the evidence I have presented?

The overall trend still shows warming.

woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1958/to:2017/every/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017/trend

>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno fgt pls

L0Lno fgt pls

global warming denialists BTFO

No. I don't care because we literally can't do anything about it either way. If it's manmade, then we're not going to shut down industry and possibly go carbon-negative to fix it, so we're inevitably fucked if that's true. If it's not, well then we can't do anything about that can we?

>shut down industry is the only option
Nice strawman

We literally have to go carbon-negative at this point if we actually want to do something about global warming (assuming it's manmade). How is that a strawman?

why does Veeky Forums feel the need to shoehorn politics into everything? You just want people to congratulate you on having the Right Opinions (tm). If you want a circlejerk over unrelated shit go to another website.

Because there are ways to do that without shutting down all industry and you damn well know that, you disingenuous fuck.

not ONCE did he mention politics and yet you felt the need to shoehorn it in because you want approval. What the fuck is with this board?

ur a fucking nut if you actually believe that

Not true. Implementing an optimal carbon tax would save billions of dollars in future damages through moderate disincentive. Simply slowing the growth of emissions helps enormously.

>This is not true, it is statistically no different than last year.

You are right, it is statistically no different than 2015, the previous warmest year on record. That proves nothing and still doesn't change the fact that empirically, 2016 was the warmest year on record.

You can cherrypick all you want to try and debunk legitimate climate science. Even if 2016 was .11 degrees cooler than 2015, it still doesn't change the overall warming trend.

This is where deniers like to manipulate. What you're saying is that the current warming trend isn't unique, that it is primarily caused by natural factors, that it has happened before, and humans have nothing to do with it.

The truth, and scientifically proven fact of the matter is we have never seen a RATE of warming this high in the last 650,000 years. IT HAS BEEN WARMER ON EARTH. THERE HAS BEEN HIGHER CO2 CONCENTRATIONS BEFORE. No climate scientist will ever deny that. So what is the cause for concern you're asking? We have never seen an increase in CO2 or temperatures over such a short time scale in the last 650,000 years. When this occurred before, it happened over many thousands of years. Life on Earth was able to adapt. Mass extinction events have occurred int he past with similar rates of change in CO2 and temperatures, but still not as a drastic of a rate we are seeing now.

We know every theory you try to bring up. We explain it over and over again, and we studied all the possible natural factors that don't explain the rate of change of warming we are seeing now.

I live next to large river that used to regularly freeze in the winter.

Doesn't anymore. Winter starts in January, spring is shorter. Summer is 40+ deegrees C.

You didn't get his point. Yes, every little bit helps, but it's delaying the inevitable unless some serious and fundamental change is made. That change is getting humanity's collective ass on sustainable power that leaves little to no carbon footprint, thus truly stopping global warming in its tracks.

I personally believe we had that chance when atomic power-plants were the hot new thing, but that won't happen now that the shadow of Chernobyl looms over every serious discussion on the subject. It may very well be that historians in the far future will classify the disaster as one of the critical events that defined the development, and by extension destiny, of our entire species. Whether it will be for the better or worse depends on whether we can produce a practical alternative.

Like what?
>Ad hominem
Not an argument

>fraud is a problem in every scientific discipline, especially in more fuzzy, soft ones that aren't easily replicable
>academic pressure to publish meaningful positive papers over uncertainties and "we just didn't find anything, this is a waste of time" papers is well acknowledged

>none of this could ever happen in the most politicised and polarising scientific discipline and everything published is ~*science*~ you pleb

Explain this.

According to NOAA's bluebook of their nearly 6 billion dollar budget over 500 million, 8%, was spent just on ship fuel costs. (source: corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy17_bluebook/FY17_BB_Final_508.pdf)

Assuming a cost of $250/mt for fuel NOAA will burn just over 1,666,667 mt (12,216,667 barrels of oil) of fuel this year alone.

According to the EPA 5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel. (source: epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)

So NOAA is producing at least 5,253,166 tons CO2/yr to study the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Typical American hypocrisy.

It's not delaying, its mitigating. What's inevitable is inevitable. We should be focused on how to fix what we can. He was presenting a false dichotomy between doing nothing and eliminating AGW.

>this is what creationists actually believe

>memeing
Glad to hear that meaningful answer right there friendo

This has nothing to do with whether NOAA is correct. Its just a feeble distraction from the issue. NOAA would only be a hypocrite if they were demanding that no emissions be made. Can you show me where they demand that?

It's just really funny that everything you write is exactly the save as what every other science denying ideology claims. You have no evidence so instead you go straight to conspiracy logic.

What conspiracy logic? Are you denying the claims of experts in soft sciences like economy, psychology, sociology and even harder ones like biology that academic fraud exists and that lack of funding and open positions incentivises people to make their papers much better than they actually are? Do you want me to post a couple of links? I really find it funny that I've never received a non-meme answer to this observation, while people complain about p-hacking, creative statistics and outright falsifications in their respective fields, nobody in climate science even wants to acknowledge the possibility exists, let alone address it meaningfully.

That is a not even a drop in the bucket, it's insignificant overall. The fact that you think because NOAA emits CO2 that they shouldn't be able to conduct an ounce of research is some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen. You know that NOAA does far more than study climate change too, right? It's the National OCEANOGRAPHIC and ATMOSPHERIC administration.

NOAA employs over 11,000 people, and has a fleet of 17 ships that conduct research, as well as their own aircraft fleet for studying the atmosphere and weather.

Would you rather no research at all be done to study the atmosphere / oceans? Even if you deny climate change, that doesn't mean that the atmosphere / oceans aren't worth studying and collecting data from.

Incorrect as the parent poster was not arguing the validity of NOAA's claims. What he actually argued was that NOAA is being hypocritical in their use of fossil fuels to argue against the continued use of fossil fuels. He is correct in that point.