Climate Change PROOF of hoax nature

Why not both?

>extreme weather variance is perfectly normal
at last I truly see

It's neither a strawman nor a false dichotomy.

"The science is settled!" is a real dichotomy with, "Changing is just how science works!" and both are commonly presented as defenses of global warming alarmism. You get the first when you question the predictions, and you get the second when you point out that the predictions have changed (especially retroactively, in order to claim that current events in conflict with past predictions in fact support today's global warming science).

The science is curve-fitting. The evidence given for the validity of the science is that the curve of past data has been fitted. When new data comes in and it doesn't match the curve, they just do more curve-fitting and say the science has advanced. Global climate science has no track record of successful prediction in its decades of declaring its own competence in predicting climate change on the scale of decades.

The science is settled refers to basic facts of climatology, such as CO2 causing warming. However, like any science, there is still much to learn and discover in climatology. So yes, it's clearly a false dichotomy posed by obscuring details, just like you presented a false dichotomy between increased droughts and increased flooding by obscuring the reasons for why these occur.

And climatology has a strong track record of successful predictions, we have been successfully predicting global surface temperature for decades, and climatologists predicted increased summer droughts and winter flooding in California 30 years ago. So not only are you making misleading arguments by posing false dichotomies, you're also lying.

>The whole point of science is to adapt its predictions to fit the new (and old) observations, you fucking retard.
> Confuses a scientific theory with the scientific method.
The science proceeds, but the theory has been falsified. At least, that's what's supposed to happen.

>Warming increases risk of summer drought and winter floods at this latitude.
> Summer drought
> Winter non-drought.
'Cause droughts last 3 months.

Could you please stop making shit up?

>climate change decreases overall precipitation and what precipitation occurs tends to be in a few large storms than spread over lots of small storms
that's been the prediction for many years, it's not science's fault you never bothered to learn it

>Global climate science has no track record of successful prediction in its decades of declaring its own competence in predicting climate change on the scale of decades.

O contraire, mon Frere! Climate change has a spectacular record of predictions.*

__________________________________________________________________________________
* after massive data tampering

> Winter non-drought.
Wrong. The reason you get floods in winter is not because you get more precipitation, it's because whatever precipitation you get comes in the form of rain and not snow. So it doesn't imply non-drought at all. But again, the only reason you don't understand this is because you completely ignored the actual reasons why this occurs and fabricated a complete strawman, making you look like an idiot.

>>climate change decreases overall precipitation and what precipitation occurs tends to be in a few large storms than spread over lots of small storms
>that's been the prediction for many years, it's not science's fault you never bothered to learn it

Citation?

>Wrong. The reason you get floods in winter is not because you get more precipitation, it's because whatever precipitation you get comes in the form of rain and not snow.* So it doesn't imply non-drought at all. But again, the only reason you don't understand this is because you completely ignored the actual reasons why this occurs and fabricated a complete strawman, making me look like an idiot
ftfy

Oh boy, you completely forgot to talk about your 3 month summer droughts. Oooppps.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* once again just making shit up, please don't look at that graph.

>The science is settled refers to basic facts of climatology, such as CO2 causing warming.

>basic facts
>shrill claims

>CO2 causing warming
>industrial society causing global disaster

>we have been successfully predicting global surface temperature for decades
No one predicted the "pause", which started shortly after "the science is settled!" started being claimed.

I'm talking about the latitudes of California and the US, not the entire northern hemisphere. Snowfall trends in the northern hemisphere is dominated by Arctic snowfall, which increases as ice cover decreases. Another misleading argument, what a surprise.

At least quote the entire sentence. And note that this is from the chapter about North America, not global effects.
>Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.
So fewer snowstorms but more ice storms.

If you merely read the introduction to the document, you'll note that heavier and more concentrated precipitation events are a primary prediction.

"No one predicted a pause." That's a denier lie.

Fyfe, John C., et al. "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown." Nature Climate Change 6.3 (2016): 224-228.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
Does the Global Warming Pause in the Last Decade: 1999-2008?
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;….Themodels did not provide answers to the physical causes for warming pause. The mechanism still remains controversial….”

__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
The role of natural climatic variation in perturbing the observed global mean temperature trend
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”

__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides…”

>pause meme
Get over it already.

>I'm changing my story because you keep showing how wrong I am.

Where your data and citations buddy? Mine are right here:

>
>>pause meme
>Get over it already.
You're right, absolutely no one predicted a pause. Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
doi:10.1038/nclimate1229
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 15 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”

__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
“…The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…”

__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 1 March 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

>I'm changing my story because you keep showing how wrong I am.
Yes, I predicted you would prove how wrong I was so I changed my story in the first post I made in this thread: >Warming increases risk of summer drought and winter floods at this latitude.

Brilliant, you caught me.

>Where your data and citations buddy? Mine are right here:
Your citations don't support what you're arguing buddy.

>>>pause meme
>>Get over it already.
>You're right, absolutely no one predicted a pause.
The pause is an evil denier lie. It was never discussed or believed in.

__________________
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
….Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
doi:10.1038/nature12534
__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…

__________________
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist……“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
_

There was no pause

Yet again, you attempt to mislead people by posting outdated, flawed analyses. The pause meme was caused by various biases and artifacts in the data:
science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

If climate deniers actually believed they had a rational argument, why do they need to lie and make misleading arguments all the time?

>>pause meme
>>Get over it already.
The pause is an evil denier lie. It was never discussed or believed in

Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”

__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth et al – Nature Climate Change – 11 July 2014
Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
__________________________________________________________
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 January 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….

__________________
Dr. Hervé Douville et al – Geophysical Research Letters – 10 February2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….

The denier is still keeping this stale copypasta around even though the pause was proven to not exist. Sad!

Could you provide a link for this crap instead of just spamming a bunch of random notes?
You need actual data to back up your arguments, not random speculation that a scientist wrote in an email to a colleague.

>Yet again, you attempt to mislead people by posting outdated, flawed analyses. The pause meme was caused by various biases and artifacts in the data**

Pause? Climate Change is TRUE!
No Pause? Climate Change is TRUE!*

Thanks for the unfalsifiability.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
* brought to you by data tampering and completely natural El Nino
** corrected by Thomas, "replace clean buoy data with bad ship intake data" Karl
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Just read the last 100 threads in which this denier tard's copypasta got BTFO

warosu.org/sci/thread/8309866#p8310345

>even though the pause was proven to not exist. Sad!
The warmist is defending tampered data, sad!

>warosu.org/sci/thread/8309866#p8310345

^f "pause"

nothing

>MUH TAMPERING
And thus the denier devolves into his base state, tinfoil nutjob who can't respond to the science.

Well this ended quicker than usual.

>onymous 02/20/17(Mon)16:55:12 No.8690003 ▶
>
>
> >MUH TAMPERING
> And thus the denier devolves into his base state, tinfoil nutjob who can't respond to the science.
> Well this ended quicker than usual

Hurr, durr "Conspiracy Theory Nut!"
And thus does the shill look at completely altered temperatures histories and dodges the painful cognitive dissonance by resorting to ad hominem. You know something? Sometimes a theory is just wrong. No conspiracy needed, just deeply flawed statistical methods.

Since you believe that skeptics of a big scientific theory are all conspiracy nuts, then this is what you would believe:

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___________________ Relative 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

>I'm not a conspiracy nut!
>Shill!

>Sometimes a theory is just wrong. No conspiracy needed, just deeply flawed statistical methods.
Then why call it tampering? And when are you going to prove that their methods are wrong?

All you do is post the same retarded copypasta over and over again. Get some new material, loser.

warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=Non-deterministic physics can only be true if there's a huge conspiracy
Can you just make a picture of your copypastas? It's embarrasing knowing you have these things saved as a word document and you're wasting time copying and pasting all the time.

Literally the only reason I'm skeptical about climate change is the result of liberals believing in it.

Why would a liberal pretend to give a fuck about the environment, but advocate for third world immigration at the same time? (in case you didn't know, putting a subsidence farmer from a third world country into a first world nation results in a massive increase in resource and energy consumption.)

Has it ever occurred to you that climate scientists can be conservative in other matters? Why do you think all climate scientists believe in certain ideologies?

>summer "drought"
that's not how droughts work dumbass

Why don't I think climate scientists are apolitical?

Because I'm not a fucking idiot

That's circular. You said you doubt climate science because liberals believe it, and you believe climate scientists are all liberal because you already doubt it.

So you have no critical thinking skills and follow ideology yourself.

>Why would a liberal pretend to give a fuck about the environment, but advocate for third world immigration at the same time?
The majority of opinions on literally anything (including politics, anywhere on the political spectrum) fall into two camps:

>people don't care very strongly, so their opinions might end up being contradictory simply out of lack of research/focused thought
>people care very strongly because of an ideology, but the force of their ideology completely eclipses facts and reasoning

It's the same in this example.

Take your schizo pills already.

Because any reasonable person cares about climate not because plants and animals > humans but because it's good not to destroy your home. The same reason why no climate scientist is advocating genocide but rather improvements in the mismanagement and waste sector and then cutting down on comfortable but wrong things.

This is the same guy that pops up in every one of these threads, probably makes them as well considering no one ever makes threads on climate change on Veeky Forums except cross-posters from /pol/ or /x/.

That's really embarrassing though, I've seen the same exact posts copy pasted from this guy, with the same exact images with the same exact filenames way too many times already.
I've bothered to stop replying / participating in these threads because no matter how much evidence one presents to refute this retard's claims, he continues to use the same copy-pasted "arguments" and never evolves or changes his argument when evidence that contradicts his claims is presented. It's just not worth it anymore.

>I've bothered to stop replying / participating in these threads
Religion, sometimes it's hard to just walk away.

>Haha you stupid right-wingers' scientists are just bribed by the Oil boogeyman
>HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT THERE ARE GROUPS THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN CONVINCING THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WILL ALL DIE IF THEY DON'T GIVE THE GROUPS ALL THEIR MONEY