Hey Veeky Forums can you debunk pic related? I'm not from /pol/ by the way...

We do not have enough data to prove either way that climate change is or is not man made. We'd need temperature data spanning several ice-ages. We'd need data on solar system composition, any disturbances (massive comets), solar output.
However, it has been proven that greenhouse gases exist. It is proven fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere with all other variables equal, produce a warming effect. It has also been proven that human activity has released a significant amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The conclusion is that human activity has warmed the planet. It is fully possible that without man made global warming we'd be in the beginning of an ice-age right now. No-one knows, because we do not have the data. All we know is we made it hotter, the baseline is anybodies guess. If it has been a bad or good thing is anybodies guess.

We do - it's called proxy data, and it's just as accurate as measurements gained from modern day sensors. The most common and incredibly reliable form is gained from a variety of untouched ice core samples from both ice caps with identical data. It goes back hundreds of millions of years and is accurate even to this year.

I've seen many theories and what think that's a decent conclusion is: climate change is not a 21st century disaster, it is a natural behaviour of our closed system Earth, however, humans seem to be acelarating the process (and that's pretty bad since that a few extra decades always make a huge difference in our technology), proof appears when graphs of CO2/H2O(g)/others vs Temperature of the last decades are put aside with theoretical graphs not including increase in some substances produced by our civilization.

The issue with looking at a few graphs and thinking oh wow debunked is you completely miss the context the figures are shown and the other angles the data should be examined. A common misconception is to conflate climate change in the next few decades/centuries with climate trends over a much longer time scale. Basically if you aren't an expert who's up to speed with the literature on this area you really should really not talk too much, especially not out of your ass like the climate deniers.

If you have really 'debunked' anything major it will be published on a peer reviewed journal and reported everywhere because there sure as hell is a lot of profits that can be gained from that discovery.

All the graphs a real and used to support half truths on which he builds and argument filled with outright lies.

>Not only are we not in period if 'record high temperatures' we are in one of the coldest periods in 65 million years.

He provides a real graphs (often outdated but not fake) to support this claim but ignores the fact that within the cool ice age period we are experiencing, the last hundred or so years has seen rising temperatures that take us above what could be considered a normal warm spell.

>We do not have enough data to prove either way that climate change is or is not man made.

There is loads. Deniers deliberately ignore it.

Really? You have data on solar output for the last few 100 000 years? Ice-core temperature data, tells you the temperature not the cause of the temperature.

>Hey Veeky Forums can you debunk pic related?
Yes
>I'm not from /pol/ by the way
You're not fooling anyone
>I'm not quite on the bandwagon that climate change isn't manmade and is completely natural
Yes you are
>but this is a pretty good argument
No it's not
>Do you have a good rebuttal?
It would be wasted on you and your kind

This isn't helping our argument though, I'd like to know because the science is interesting and I want to be able to debunk these as well.

The basic physics behind climate change is more than 100 years old. Seriously, all you need to do is learn about the IR absorption spectra of various greenhouse gases, and it'll all make sense. The rest of it is just making sure there aren't any other factors going on in the earth system that would counteract that GHG-induced radiative forcing (such as clouds, solar cycle, aerosols, etc.), and time and time again it's been shown that you can't explain the warming we've seen over the last century-ish through those other factors. Only when you include the greenhouse-gas emissions does it all add up and make a coherent picture.

The rest of the arguments that are used to "debunk" this basic fundamental explanation for man-made climate change involve deceptive argumentation methods like cherrypicking, setting up strawmen, using visual trickery, omitting key context.

>basic fundamental explanation for man-made climate change involve deceptive argumentation methods like cherrypicking, setting up strawmen, using visual trickery, omitting key context
The only thing that hasn't been debunked is the latest AGW meme that we have never seen climate change as fast as it has over the last 1/2 century or whatever. How the warmists have come to that questionable conclusion accurately with simple ice core samples or other climate relics from a million or even billion years ago is a mystery.

But then it's on to muh ocean acidification meme or muh fossil fuels are just plain evil anyway...and on and on it will go forever but one side of the debate is now backed and financed by a tax grab (on nothing less than life itself via CO2) aiming to become global in scope.

First image - He is wrong about humans having "no evidence that humans are having any impact on climate whatsoever," this is simply not true and comes from a level of congnative dissonance that I didn't think was possible. Fuck, remove greenhouse gasses and just look at the oceans, coral bleaching and ocean acidification effects on marine organisms.
>Extinction risk from climate change (one of the most cited papers in climate sciences in the past few decades).
nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
>Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms - Hansen et al.
columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf
>Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years:
nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2681.html

I could post more sources, I have links to hundreds of scientific papers on climate change, not enough space here though.

That chart, attempting to show "65 million years of climate change" means absolutely nothing when you are considering the current warming trend. We are in an inter-glacial, an inter-glacial that is projected to be remarkably stable, and without human forcings on climate Earth would be slightly cooling:
researchgate.net/publication/11194016_CLIMATE_An_Exceptionally_Long_Interglacial_Ahead
science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394

>An appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data
This retarded fuck has no idea how paleoclimate data is studied, or what proxies are. He seemingly thinks that paleoclimate data is of the same accuracy as modern temp / satellite readings, he is an absolute retard if he believes we should be using a baseline that goes back millions of years. That's not how you do a statistical analysis of climate data, and it would leave you with gibberish.

If I have time I'll focus on every single image in that post, but I might have to do more tomorrow as I need to sleep soon.

>Life tax Oh noes!!!!
Really? You couldn't come up with anything better than that?

I just hide and ignore and filter those kinds of posts, user. No point in even trying to debate them because you'll be wasting your breath.

As for paleoclimate data, I love how denialists love to harp on about paleoclimate. I thought all climate scientists were involved in a conspiracy to commit data fraud, and produce inaccurate models of climate? Wouldn't paleoclimatologists be included in that conspiracy? It's funny how they trust the paleoclimate data 100% despite the analysis and collection of that data all being done by the same Earth scientists that collaborate with the climate modelers studying today's data.

Anyways, onto the second chart showing phanerozoic climate change.
He talks about the ice cap melting being not a big deal, and how glaciations and deglaciations have happened in the past. No fucking shit, but human civilization didn't exist on coastal zones at that time, there weren't cities and ports and agriculture in those coastal regions, there wasn't 70% of the human population within 120 miles of the coast at that time.

Second, the rate of sea ice decline is unprecedented, meltwater from sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets in greenland has the potential to shut down ocean circulation, something that has happened in the past during warm periods. This is something that will have a massive impact on the Atlantic ocean, and could lead to superstorm systems that toss fucking boulders off the sea floor like you can find in the Bahamas.
science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf
science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1377
science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

The oldest ice, the multi-season ice is practically all gone by now. We still have sea ice every year and likely will for decades, but every year the extent is less and less, and during the summer months without as much sea ice, glaciers in Greenland melt and retreat faster, decreasing the volume of the Greenland ice sheet faster.

psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

>I love how denialists love to harp on about paleoclimate. I thought all climate scientists were involved in a conspiracy to commit data fraud, and produce inaccurate models of climate? Wouldn't paleoclimatologists be included in that conspiracy? It's funny how they trust the paleoclimate data 100% despite the analysis and collection of that data all being done by the same Earth scientists that collaborate with the climate modelers studying today's data.
It's classic cherrypicking combined with confirmation bias. The climate data that suits the denialists' argument is fine by them, but then they throw out all the vast, vast wealth of data that underpins man-made climate change because by default it must be "fraudulent" or "bogus" or part of the grand "conspiracy"

Look at the timescale for the second image on that image as well, he talks about rapid declaciations over thousands of years, the rate of decrease is accelerating every year as more CO2 is added and ppm rises, and it will rise further into the future once positive feedbacks of climate change start to kick in more and more, such as methane clathrates and permafrost trapped CO2 and methane, which will add to the already abnormally high rate of warming in the northern hemisphere. Keep in mind that warming in the northern hemisphere is much higher than in the south, and that there is some data that Antarctica is gaining sea ice in the east (from 2003-2008), that rate has been decreasing every decade, and ice loss in the West antarctic ice sheet is accelerating. Not to mention that globally there is a net loss of sea ice because of how rapidly we are losing ice in the Northern hemisphere.
74.91.188.122/earths-climate/ewExternalFiles/Shakhova 2010.pdf

Again, it's really concerning in the northern hemisphere because if the melt rates increase enough, it could leave a blanket of cold, freshwater over the north Atlantic, disrupting AMOC, causing Europe to cool and have colder winters, as well as preventing deepwater formation.
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2899.html
youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8&t=604s
youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7GfNhR5PLA
youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8
epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change

The hilarious part is how deniers try to distract from their own cherrypicking by claiming that climate scientists are cherrypicking climate data by not going back millions of years, or claiming that for example, US surface temp data is inaccurate due to UHI, something that is just not true, while ignoring the global trend that doesn't depend on US data alone.

The worst case of cherrypicking from deniers I can think of is how they go on about "the pause" starting in 1998, a period in which we had the largest recorded El Nino spike in the temperature anomaly. They start in 1998 and ignore decades upon decades of warming prior to it, acting as if global warming has "stopped." You could pretty much pick a place on any anomaly graph, start at the beginning of one high point, and then go a few years and find another "pause." It's completely fraudulent.

For example, on this graph you can see the massive el nino spike in 1998, and a "decline" afterwards, but the overall trend is still positive when you look over decades, not just a short period.

When they say there has been no warming they also completely ignore the fact that oceans have been warming at an increasing rate as well. The oceans are much more important as an indicator of global climate than the atmosphere is overall. The vast majority of heat generated from global warming is going in the oceans. I don't know the exact number, but I think it's like 90%+ of all the heat that is trapped.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

What's that means is that as sea ice declines in the arctic each year, more heat is absorbed into the oceans there, and as that happens, it decreases the extend of sea ice each year, as well as accelerates glacier melting. Compare the rates of retreat of glaciers in the early 20th century to now. They are rapidly accelerating in retreat worldwide.

>Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see the section "Structure and bonding" above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the upper atmosphere.

So if you put CO2 into the atmosphere, what's going to happen?

Also, I'll point out that "deniers" absolutely hate being called this. They believe themselves paragons of science and skepticism, heroes going up against an evil political machine, or whatever else they have imagined themselves to be. I call them deniers without apologies, many climate scientists refuse to do this because it's "insulting," but I've dealt with these retards for so long that I don't care anymore. Why not, when they spend time calling climate scientists frauds, "warmists" or whatever bullshit terms they themselves use?

Anyways, back to OP's image.
The third image is talking about SLR, and how SLR was high in the past few thousand years (no shit, coming out of a massive glacial period means melting land ice, rising sea levels, this is nothing new. Once again, they conveniently ignore the timescales, and the fact that humans have civilization based on the coastal zone, cities that are all vulnerable to accelerating (keyword here) SLR. It's going to amplify and grow as positive feedbacks increase in the future, and it's already rising high enough right now to have an impact on cities like Miami. There's multiple factors to SLR, thermal expansion of ocean water as it heats up, and increases due to glacial meltwater, currently 1.8mm/yr. May seem "insignificant" but this is a high rate and is increasing. IPCC projections for SLR by 2100 are pretty modest, anywhere from 0.8 to 2m+, but IPCC projections are very conservative. If the current trends continue, and glaciers keep retreating faster and faster, exposing Greenland's ice sheets to the sea, the rate will increase.

Also pic related is just something to demonstrate the coverage for ARGO floats in the world's oceans. It's not perfect coverage, but it's pretty widespread globally and we can gather a lot of meaningful data from only a few thousand floats. There's also buoys and ship temperature data, though ship temp data has fallen out of use due to temperature biases from heat generated by the ship.

Tell me about it. I'm a former science writer who used to write about this kind of shit all the time, including some of the research on the role of the oceans in modulating the "hiatus" or whatever. Every time I wrote an article on new climate research, I would get tons of angry people writing me emails and posting comments on my articles about how much of a globalist/UN/liberal/solar-panel shill I was and how I needed to look at the graph that James Inhofe and other climate deniers in Congress were passing around.

I still wonder what will become of the ARGO floats in Oceania given the royal mess that CSIRO finds itself in with those research cuts.

At, the fourth image, this one is a bit famous, in that it's a perfect example of how climate deniers cherrypick and obfuscate their interpretation of climate data to fit their own agenda. Ironic, how very ironic considering they say that actual climate scientists do the same exact, dishonest data projection / analyses.

First off, here are some sources that can adequately explain the flaws in this graph better than I ever could, from actual climate scientists themselves:
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets
This is from Gavin Schmidt, of NASA's GISS. It's a little complex to read though.

Another great breakdown of this, more basic to read.
blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

James Inhofe, I hate that fucker so much. There was a time that he brought a snowball into the senate to "disprove" climate change. Also, Marc Morano, the guy that runs climate depot, worked under Inhofe for years. It's amazing how well connected all the climate science deniers are with each other, attending the same conferences each year, being funded by the same energy industies, etc. Yet deniers find ways to play mental gymnastics with these facts, and pretend like government grants for climate research are all biased, and the scientists are pushed to publish favorable results to prop up a conspiracy or whatever. It's all asinine.

I'm not familiar with Australian politics, why are they losing funding?

Here's a more recent graph of the models (CIMP5) compared to observations, using a 1986-2005 baseline, which is what the IPCC uses.
climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

Obviously when you look at Spender's graph, if you ignore the manipulation, they have chosen a starting point at which the observations are on the low end of the models, obviously because they want to show that the "models are wrong."

Because the head of CSIRO doesn't really have a science background and he thought that in tough budget times they didn't need to spend so much money on stuff that science had already "proven" or whatever...as if we know literally everything we've ever wanted to know about the climate system, even though there are still many, many more mysteries to uncover.

Morano is a scumbag who seems to see his whole purpose in life as causing suffering for scientists. He's pretty much admitted as much.

Usually, these climate threads are super annoying, but I am kind of glad OP created this thread because your responses were very informative. Great posts! Very neat.

As far as the ice core post, the fifth one on OP's image is concerned, he's saying that CO2 increase is insignificant. This is simply not true. CO2 is higher than it has been in the past ~800k years, and is increasing each year, we just crossed 400ppm a few years ago.
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

So basically the same thing happening in the states with Trump appointing people like Rick Perry / Scott Pruitt to head scientific departments of government.

I agree though, cutting funding to climate research makes no sense at all. We need to know as much as humanly possible about climate change in order to understand it better, since it has potentially global impacts on human civilization, this is one reason why I'm really afraid of Trump's admin, because he wants to eliminate NASA's Earth sciences division which studies climate change.

Thanks, but I'm hardly the most informed person in this issue. My understandings are amateur at best so take what I say with that in mind. Best way to understand the evidence is to read through the literature itself, at least some abstracts of important climate science papers. Also there's a lot of great resources that can explain everything a lot better than I can out there, like NASA Earth observatory for example.

The sad thing is, NASA's climate research division may come under assault by Trump. If Republicans have their way, there won't be such a thing as NASA climate research anymore.

Many people were critical of Obama's handling of certain areas of NASA's space budget, but Trump basically wants to cut out an entire segment of NASA"s research, which could be really devastating, and not just to climate researchers themselves.

So basically the same thing happening in the states with Trump appointing people like Rick Perry / Scott Pruitt to head scientific departments of government.
Sort of. The head of CSIRO isn't a climate denier, he was just really misguided in his decision-making, in the view of most of the global scientific community. It is true that the government under which he's served hasn't been nearly as pro-climate policy as the opposition parties are, however.

OP here, surprised this thread is still up. Thanks for the responses, I'm convinced

You, sir, were a dick though, that was uncalled for

>without human forcings on climate Earth would be slightly cooling

How much?

CS guy here. Interested in learning a little more about climate science -- I have some physics background from undergrad but not much.

What are some good introductory textbooks on the subject? What are the go-to datasets for analysis? It's not that I don't believe in climate change -- I'd just like to personally replicate some of the regressions and models for my own peace of mind that so-called skepticism is largely politically motivated.

I am also very interested, though I can handle a 4u paper if need be

Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Geoscience_Textbook_Recommendations
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Potholer54 cites all his sources and presents in an easy to understand manner so you can use those when you're more familiar with the subject.
realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

the 4th figure is literally taken directly from Roy Spencer's website
>drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

>You have data on solar output for the last few 100 000 years?
Yes. Some radioisotopes (such as 14C) are produced by the impact of cosmic rays on atoms in the atmosphere. Cosmic ray flux is affected by solar activity. Ice cores preserve small samples of air and water from those time periods; if you know how old the ice is and how much of various radionuclides there is, you can determine solar activity.
>Ice-core temperature data, tells you the temperature not the cause of the temperature.
Ice cores tell you a lot. They tell you CO2 concentration. They tell you, by stable isotope proxies such as 13C and 18O, how much ice was locked up in glaciers and at the poles.

His argument seems to be that what we can observe now is not drastically different from what's happened in the past. He appears, ironically, to not understand the epistome of the charts on display.

Science suggests CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He appears incredulous.

The idea behind global warming is that there will be a point of no return to reverse what we observed as a trend away from a climate we're used to. The world won't end, it'll just change drastically. The world didn't end most landwalking species were wiped out by an asteroid millions of years ago. But everyone died. Their remains became what we turn into gasoline. Eventually life evolved back onto the planet. Even if everything were to die, it could come back. There's still a couple billion years before the Sun dies so there's time. Venus probably was just as Hellish when the dinos walked as it is now, we won't bake the life out of pur planet.

We will just stop being the dominant species and our technology and ideas will die with us.

This lecture series is pretty good:
forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Last chart is interesting, but it's not that significant in our understanding of the current climate trend. First, look at the X-axis and see how it goes from units of 100 million years down to 1000, so if you were looking at a true, to scale graph the climate changes millions / hundreds of thousands of years ago are much less rapid than the chart makes them seem.

Secondly, the data that we have for climate going back millions of years is all proxy data, there is a hell of a lot of uncertainty with paleoclimate data that goes back that far, we can have a general idea of what temperatures were like, but still, uncertainty is very high.

Also, notice that you can correlate some of the largest spikes in temperature and CO2 on that graph with mass extinction events, as well as minor extinctions.

Funny how the data for the green section of the graph comes from Hansen et al. and Zachos, two climatologists that deniers like to claim have manipulated their data to fit an agenda. Funny how they overlook this when they want their conspiracy to fit their biases.
nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html

His entire argument also relies on "it hasn't happened yet, so climate projections are useless! They're all frauds!" despise every scientific field out there making models to do predict outcomes. But no, when climate science makes models they're all fraudulent or "inaccurate" despite the fact that the models have been pretty damn accurate and useful to understand climate projections.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

Most deniers will attack Realclimate as a source as well, despite the website being run by a publishing climate scientists (Gavin Schmidt of GISS being one of the primary, but others like Mann, Rahmstorf and Archer contribute), not failed meteorologists or lobbyists like most denier blogs.

The theoretical calculations have shown that Earth would be pretty much uninhabitable if we didn't have naturally occurring greenhouse gases. At the Sun's present radiative output, the Earth would be -18 degrees centigrade.

giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

I would recommend "Elementary Climate Physics" by Taylor if you're looking for a physics-based treatment. Make sure you've had multivariable calculus and differential equations and such before you read it though.

That's not what he was asking I think, I think he means without any greenhouse gasses from human activity, what would be happening to the Earth's climate.

The blue line on this graph is projected Earth temperatures without anthropogenic forcings. It's pretty stable, but some models show Earth cooling very slightly.

I can't, but my research money depends on climate change so I don't belive it

>If you have really 'debunked' anything major it will be published on a peer reviewed journal and reported everywhere because there sure as hell is a lot of profits that can be gained from that discovery

More like a lot of upset politicians and climate "scientists" who will lose their money. Most importantly, the U.N.'s request for billions of dollars will end. Only an incredibly naive person will think that climate "science" is about scientific truth.

>Basically if you aren't an expert who's up to speed with the literature on this area you really should really not talk too much, especially not out of your ass like the climate deniers.
> Muh authority

This is exactly why cartoonists turned psychologists should never be trusted when it comes to climate "science."

Why would climate scientists lose money? Do you see geologists claiming humans cause earthquakes to get money?

How's that low hanging fruit taste, why not try a challenge? realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/

>
>Really? You have data on solar output for the last few 100 000 years? Ice-core temperature data, tells you the temperature not the cause of the temperature.
They take low frequency, low resolution with temporal resolution on the order of 100s or 1000s of years and glue high frequency, high resolution (yearly or better) data on the end of it. Presto! Instant hockey stick.

Put that CO2 spike through a 100 year smoother (averaging) function. It will disappear.

Don't be stupid. Funding would go way down.

How much do you think climate scientists get paid compared to geologists?

>How's that low hanging fruit taste, why not try a challenge? realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/
You're the ones who are constantly using SkS as a starting point in your "debunking."

>everyone discussing climate science is one person
Ah now I see where your delusion starts.
Here, educate yourself.

>I love how denialists love to harp on about paleoclimate. I thought all climate scientists were involved in a conspiracy to commit data fraud, and produce inaccurate models of climate?

Ah yes, once again, the pathetic resort to ad hominem. Because if a majority of (highly biased bureaucrats) fund climate "scientists" then the only way they can get the science wrong is CONSPIRACY!

This is your pathetic world view:

MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE__________ SKEPTIC THEORY_____________ YOU
Ether theory of light__________________________ No ether _____________________There could only be no ether if there's a huge conspiracy
Continents are fixed__________________________ Continents drift________________ Continential drift can only be true if they're a huge conspiracy
Physics is deterministic_______________________ Quantum mechanics___________ Non-deterministic physics can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Phlogiston theory of Combustion________________ No phlogiston_________________ No phlogiston can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Time and space are fixed______________________ Relativity____________________ Fixed space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Catastrophic AGW will kill us___________________ CO2 has a weak effect_________ CO2 Weak!!!??? Its a conspiracy theory

>whines about ad hominem
>continues to ad hominem

Educate yourself:
cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf

>nb4 not funded by money hungry politicians, but by evil deniers.
So what. Try facts and logic instead of ad hominem

stop blabbering, a 50cm sea level rise over the next 80 years won't cause the apocalypse

>Its ad hominem to point out the usage of ad hominem.
Whatever.

>Fixed space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Relative space and time can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy

Just read a tiny bit and came accross this.
>Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite
data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
Choosing 18 years is cherry picking because 1998 was an unusually strong el nino event. Safe to completely discard the rest of the paper.

>This is your pathetic world view:
Sad.