I believe that the climate is changing, but I don't believe that it's manmade

THYME

I bet I can turn your face red faster than the sun if I slap you in the fucking face.

You're a fucking faggot and so is OP and his fucking ilk, we're literally coming out from a fucking ice age and people are running around like headless chicken, because they don't want to be confronted by something that's beyond their control, so they would rather put the blame on two hundred years of carbon emissions done by fucking ants, who are despite all their vast intellect and technology completely fucking helpless, in the face of any kind of large scale natural disaster, most of which completely fucking dwarf anything we could ever hope to do to this bitch, safe maybe for nuclear war, and even that one is nowhere near as fucked up as what cosmos and earth can do to itself, like supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts and global fucking firestorms.
So they plug their holes and go lalalala and wish that, if only we could just lock hands together and sing a song and buy some fucking solar panels, and recycle some plastic, it will go away.
I'll let you in on a secret - it won't.

THIS THIS I FUCKING HATE ANTS REEEEE

#33
#57
skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Funny how their models are invalidated every year and every year. Lindzen is less wrong.

>"climate change is not man-made"
>when you have a lot of gas it blocks light
>humans put lots of CO2 in the atmosphere
>somehow climate change is not man-made

>we're literally coming out from a fucking ice age
No we're still in an ice age because there is ice at the poles. You meant to say that we're coming out of a glacial period, which is still wrong since we warmed out of the glacial period thousands of years ago. The global temperature was flat for thousands of years and then suddenly we are seeing warming again when the expected natural change would be leaving the interglacial, i.e. cooling.

You fucks are so delusional that you think you know AGW is false when you can't even get the basic facts straight.

Denier "models" have never been correct, I agree.

There's a big problem with that argument. If the sun had a bigger impact we should be cooling right now as solar irradiance is at a minimum. But we're not. Therefore the sun cannot be having a bigger impact.

Neither did alarmist models. Climatology is a joke, but Lindzen is more scientific in his methods

There's a ton of research calculating and explaining climate sensitivity and radiative forcing. Stop lying.

Uhuh...

...

>No we're still in an ice age
>which is still wrong since we warmed out of the glacial period thousands of years ago
>the expected natural change would be leaving the interglacial
this makes zero fucking sense
make up your goddamn mind please

Global warming is real, and it is man made. But i dont care and i know for damn sure that whatever a government would do to try to fix it will just end up fucking people over

>the fact that there is a direct correlation between industrialization and global warming acceleration, and that correlation is explained by the production of GHG means nothing to me

xkcd.com/1732/

>hurr basic facts of climatology do not babe sense
How exactly does it not make sense? Look up what an ice age is. Then look up the Milankovich cycle. Then come back here and apologize for pretending to know what you're talking about.

You're in the third stage of retarded denial. Next comes accepting the consequences but denying we can do anything about it. Then comes full acceptance of the fact that mitigation can and will save billions of dollars in future damage.

Shut the fuck up and read your own post. Fucking first sentence says we haven't even left the glacial yet. Then you completely contradict it saying we've "warmed up from glacial thousands of years ago", then you contradict yourself again saying "we should be cooling again" when we haven't even fully thawed out for fuck's sake.

You know damn well there's been periods when there was no arctic ice whatsoever, followed by periods when there was so much of it it drained the fucking oceans and you could walk from Chukotka to Alaska.
This had fuckall to do with human CO2, or solar minmax, but it still happened and will continue to happen.

Stop responding to him and he'll go away

SHUT YOUR FUCKING HOLE YOU HOOSIER I DIDN'T GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO TALK YOU MOTHERFUCKER STUTTERING LITTLE PRICK

>Fucking first sentence says we haven't even left the glacial yet.
No it says we haven't left the *ice age*, you illiterate baboon. An ice age contains glacial and interglacial periods. We are still in an ice age since there is ice at the poles. There has been ice at the poles for 2.6 million fucking years.

Again try actually looking up the terms you are using, and then come here and apologize for being so stupid and arrogant.

>This had fuckall to do with human CO2, or solar minmax, but it still happened and will continue to happen.
Of course it has everything to do with CO2 and solar irradiance. Changes in solar irradiance due to orbital eccentricity start the interglacial warming which is then amplified by the GHG feedback loop. This is the reason why interglacial warming is so rapid while glacial cooling is slow.

Oh wow, it almost looks like all the models are wrong.

>look ma, we have all these models saying this
If there was a good model, people would settle on using that one. Having all these means that none is good. See string theory. We have around 10^500 models that could describe our universe. Do you see any theoretical physicist screaming how we've solved physics? No. Many models means uncertainity.
Moreover, none of these models quantifies the relative contribution of humans vs nature. In the past, there were many changes in climate, what makes it different this time? Don't conflate models with scientific theory

Don't fall for @8936881's bait

We can fix Veeky Forums, but only if we exercise restraint in our posting

Stop replying to him

It looks like all the ones that predicted long term warming are correct, while those predicting cooling, like Lindzen, are wrong.

>If there was a good model, people would settle on using that one. Having all these means that none is good.
If there are several good models, there is no reason to "settle" on one. Your argument fails.

>Do you see any theoretical physicist screaming how we've solved physics? No. Many models means uncertainity.
Do you see any climatologists saying we've "solved" climatology and there is no uncertainty? This is such an idiotic statement only a child could have devised it.

>Moreover, none of these models quantifies the relative contribution of humans vs nature.
There are plenty that do. You really have no idea what you're talking about.thank you for showing everyone that.

>posting infantile cartoons

You fell for his bait, why would you do this, for what purpose? I wonder...

pls help

To educate others on the facts and the intellectual dishonesty of deniers.

Who did you educate? The only people on Veeky Forums who are both climate change deniers and have at least some idea of what the evidence is are trolls, and you fell for it. You've only made his dick hard, and now he will do it again.

I helped by reporting the thread and not replying to it, you can too!

You're the troll.

Proclaiming you've reported a thread or post is also against the rules :)

>climate cycles can't last more than 2.6 million years.

You're entire model is based on the idea that all unknown variables are negligible but you have no way of actually proving that so all of your "conclusions" are only valid for small transformations of time.

But you decided to set the time frame over a ludicrously long time, so all of those predictions are subject to propagating chaos.

>frenetically mash potatoes
>look ma, these two kinda look like a tiger, no?
Climate "science"
Oh and don't forget about recycling these models whenever they fit the data again. You're just assuming qualitative features of these models or theories and not actually testing or falsifying them. Also forgot to mention how many of these models differ in what they assume to matter. Just moving parts until they somewhat agree with data. Meh

>I'm posting on the same board as these """"""people"""""""

Get the fuck out of here.

What are you talking about moron? Current warming has only been going on for a century or two and we already know what's causing it. Cycles of millions of years are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is on a human timescale. Why you are going on about million year cycles and then accusing me of focusing on "ludicrously long" time frames is baffling. Seek psychiatric help immediately.

Rather than debate people on "muh model is better than your model" why not talk about the underlying facts of anthropogenic global warming?

1. CO2 allow visible light to pass through and absorb infrared, hence the name greenhouse gas. 19th century physics and pretty much undeniable

2. Since the preindustrial revolution, humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to go up from fossil fuel combustion. Again undeniable fact.

3. Add 1 and 2 together, you would expect the Earth to warm, hence anthropogenic global warming. This is confirmed by satellite observation, energy in from the sun >> energy out, 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy must be conserved, hence Earth is warming
giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

For the same reason everyone else here does. Boredom. And no thanks, i'm having fun here

>wah wah models are unscientific
>but only in climate science
>there is no greenhouse effect or feedback loops wah waaaaaaah

Global warming models also predict that the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear, and it obviously isn't.

When I see a model that accurately predicts warming, I'll buy into it.

Right now, it's just correlation, which doesn't mean anything.

Models by alarmists so far are just data-fitting. They don't describe any law. Models in science describe some law, if it makes successfull predictions in different circumstances, you have a reason to believe the law holds. Not the case in climate science where they "predict" past and change models every few years to fit.

>the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear
No it's logarithmic. How many times are you going to lie about basic climate science you fucking moron?

>Models by alarmists so far are just data-fitting. They don't describe any law.
You're delusional. Nothing you've said in this thread even approaches reality.

>Global warming models also predict that the relation between emission vs. Warming is linear, and it obviously isn't.

No, I dare you to name model that does so. We all know about band saturation, and how you get diminishing return. CO2 only absorb and reemit at certain wavelength window
coursera.org/learn/global-warming/lecture/CnAIV/the-band-saturation-effect

>Right now, it's just correlation, which doesn't mean anything.
You clearly don't understand what you're talking about and just repeating the brainlet 'correlation doesn't mean causation' meme to sound smart. I just laid out the 3 causation steps, from 19th century physics to satellite observations all of which are absolute facts that correlates the observation of increasing CO2 with the observation of increasing surface T on Earth

As evidenced by IPCC constantly switching between inequal models according to which better fits current data, while pushing the same narrative and ignoring the inequalities between them. Wew that's some real science there

>As evidenced by IPCC constantly switching between inequal models according to which better fits current data
Yeah that's how science works, moron. I suppose physics is not science since we switched from classical to relativity while still saying masses attract. You caught those lying physicists!

Can you explain how exactly the updating of models invalidates the theory of AGW? Which change disagrees with the theory?

Or are you just spouting nonsense to get attention?

>confusing models testing theory with models trying to fit data
Check Milankovič to see how climate science is done. Compare with the current process of generating models. See the difference? One is scientific method, the other is not.
My problem is this. It hasn't been tested that CO2 may be neglected in physics of climate, it is assumed. See the problem there? It's not the CO2 or anything specific, it's the same for many other qualitative things in these models. How can i believe a model that assumes so much without testing it?

Utterly delusional. You must be a troll.

What about this

>I believe that the climate is changing and that part of that change is man made, BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media and that there are political and economic interest to exaggerate the man made climate change. I believe that is going to affect us in both positive and negative ways and that we don't know yet the magnitude of these effects.

How about you just listen to what the scientists are saying instead of people who exaggerate or deny what they say? Wow, what a concept.

>how about you abandon critical thinking and blindly appeal to scientific authority?

Quite the concept, Stalin.

>Wow, what a concept.

That's what I am doing you fucking imbecile.

Do you realize that the media, our politicians and those "scientist" that follow economic interests represent 90% of the information we get about climate change?

We are bombarded with disinformation. Is not easy for the average Joe to get an intellectual honest take on climate change.

>excess CO2/methane
>bacteria in the sky and ocean eats it, shits out oxygen
:thinking:

the solution is to give more money to the third world and import muslims to europe, we can only solve global warming once greater israel is established and white devils are all raped to death.
shitposting aside, i really dont understand the point of climate research. even if everybody agreed it was happening+manmade, what are you going to do about it? do you think the third world cares as much about protecting the environment, as they dump industrial waste into their water, exterminate all life in sight, breed like crazy, and spread diseases constantly

researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Hope2/publication/228783460_The_marginal_impact_of_CO2_from_PAGE2002_An_integrated_assessment_model_incorporating_the_IPCC's_five_reasons_for_concern/links/00b495333e8b1172d4000000.pdf

Most models that are created on past data to predict future data are linear.

The right way to study climate change is to make accurate predictions by looking at c02 and stating explicitly how temperature changes then matching to observed changes. In reality, temperature is being fitted to emissions, which only holds temp iff co2 which is obviously not true.
You can literally correlate anything to anything else. That's all you're doing.

>You can literally correlate anything to anything else.
co2 CAUSES the earth to be warmer by refelcting heat back

Yes it is, youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY
This guy manages to debunk a shitty media claim in about 10 minutes by clicking about 5 links
Also media and politicians != scientists, you absolute fucking sped. If you admit you don't have any information on the subject, why are you in this thread trying to convince people climate change is nothing to worry out? Hmm, I wonder, very interesting

>this time is no different

RESEARCH BOI

When did I say I don't any information or that there is nothing to worry about?

I even showed you an honest source of information are you fucking retarded?

>Most models that are created on past data to predict future data are linear.
The model you posted doesn't say CO2's radiative forcing is linear. You fail with every fucking post.

>The right way to study climate change is to make accurate predictions by looking at c02 and stating explicitly how temperature changes then matching to observed changes.
Radiative forcing measurements are made directly via radiative spectroscopy. You know nothing.

>I believe that the climate is changing and that part of that change is man made, BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media and that there are political and economic interest to exaggerate the man made climate change
>BUT I don't believe that the consequences of such change are as grim and drastic as they are presented to us by the media
New scientist isn't an honest source of information, and your highlighting is clearly cherry picking regardless

What you are doing is more insidious than what climate change deniers are doing it, whereas they can be brushed off as retarded, your attitude of "eh, we dont really know, lets leave it a bit and wait, it might be fine" is the current prevailing attitude and the one that will or has probably massively fucked and/or killed us

Prove it. That's the whole discussion here. It does say it's linear. In the appendix, the average warming is predicted by emissions * "an unknown parameter"

It's literally a line. If you want to put down deniers, it's fine. But if you want to deny that you don't know what you're talking about, you should do some serious thinking about where you are in life.

Brainlet here. Why is warming the planet by 1 or 2 degrees that bad?

Because theres a lot of planet and we can't stop or turn back time

It's 1-2 degrees average. Temperature follows a gaussian distribution, 1-2 degrees change in the mean temperature translates to exponential-fold increase in extreme weather events at the tail end of the gaussian distribution.

One can argue that this is offset by the decrease in extreme cold events, but the damage are not proportional, because society has safeguards mostly for current climate variability range, and need to adapt for the future.

For example, a lot of cities in the north, like Boston where I live are well equipped infrastructure wise to survive 1-2 ft blizzard, but not well equipped to survive heat waves. A lot of old residential building even in downtown Boston don't have air conditioning. Lack of winter blizzard is neat, but sure it cost the city more to readjust to summer extremes rather than just reusing the infrastructure that they already own to clear up and plow snow.

Hm ok, makes sense. Wouldn't the "thickness" of the gaussian curve come into the picture too? Like if the current probability of extreme hot weather is in the almost flat region, then the shifted curve's probability for extreme hot weather would also be reasonably small for a small average shift at least, right? But I get your point anyway.

Have there been any comparisons of the costs of cutting carbon usage vs improving our current infrastructure? Also, what about the ice caps melting and raising the sea level? Is that a real danger or just a meme?

>If there are several good models, there is no reason to "settle" on one. Your argument fails.

Only one model can be true at a time dumbass

Learn to stat

Global warming is communist propaganda as usual disguised in some science to weaken and preferably destroy the west. That's why these faggots hate nuclear and love offshoring western industry of any kind to spiritual and eco friendly nations like China.
>inb4 im not gommunist top lel :D
Quacks like a duck and all.

this. (((they))) really are trying to push this bs onto us.

Hmmm.
It is not bad at all, let alone catastrophic.
Why are you assuming that a higher mean air temperature has spread identical to a lower one?

BTFO

Sauce

hey Veeky Forums correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't methane worse for the environment than carbon dioxide?
pls no bully I'm a brainlet

it's a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, yes, fat people and their farts have done bigger harm to the environment than industrial revolution

>(((they)))
fuck off back to

>yes, fat people and their farts have done bigger harm to the environment than industrial revolution
no need to be mean :(
I thought that the endless filling of landfills and the agriculture industry of the US were far worse for the environment, are they not?

Some meme not peer reviewed denier site

Methane molecule by molecule is far worse than CO2, however methane lifetime in the atmosphere is only about 10 years

The atmosphere with 20% oxygen content is a highly oxidizing environment. Any reduced (e.g. containing H's) gas would get oxidized in the atmosphere. Methane get scrubbed via reaction with OH into CO2.

CO2 however, is the most oxidized form of carbon and hence you cannot oxidize it further. Therefore CO2 has no chemical sink in the atmosphere and has much longer atmospheric lifetime. CO2 stays in the atmosphere on average ~120 years, with major current sink of CO2 being the ocean. However once the ocean is fully equilibrated with the atm, it would stop being a sink, and you need to remove CO2 via very slow reaction of silicate rock weathering.

This >100yr lifetime and long impact consequence is why most climate mitigation policy focus on CO2, but this doesn't mean that CH4 is not important

>CH4 is not important
Are you sure about that, user?

>researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Hope2/publication/228783460_The_marginal_impact_of_CO2_from_PAGE2002_An_integrated_assessment_model_incorporating_the_IPCC's_five_reasons_for_concern/links/00b495333e8b1172d4000000.pdf

So I finally got a chance to read your paper.
>The author is a professor in business school, not atmospheric science
>Research was funded by GB Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on the Acknowledgement section
>Published on IAJ, shit tier journal with 1.5 impact factor and shoddy peer review (Nature for example is 38 and Science is 34).

Even despite all that, it doesn't say that "most model that are created on past data to predict future data are linear."

What it says is that
>PAGE2002 (this study) allows the marginal impacts of any gas to be found, provided only that its concentration is low enough that its radiative forcing effect is linear in its concentration

Which ironically goes against your own point, only dumb denier hack climate model assumes radiative forcing to be linearly correlated with GHG.

All legitimate climate model worth a damn would have an integrated atmospheric optical depth, radiative transfer function and will take into account such obvious first order effect like band saturation.

Why are you keep embarrassing yourself denier-kun are you a masochist?

I said it DOESN'T MEAN that CH4 is not important

Which means that CH4 IS important

What is double negative and reading comprehension

...

Did it ever occur to you that someone may have made that graph by himself based on true data even though it never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal?

>even though it never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal?

Peer review is the cornerstone of modern science. That's like the minimum bar, and even then like the penis social construct peer reviewed paper, peer review is not end all be all and could still be wrong.

Even the sketchiest denier argument could get published in a peer review journal, usually Energy & Environment (a meme denier journal that have been denounced by even one of climate skeptic Roger Pielke as having incredibly lax peer review). If your buddy cannot get his shit plot on a peer review journal, and showed a plot without any error bar in it then I don't know what to say other than your source is shit and not worth addressing

I dont even understand what you are saying. Is peer review in your opinion deeply flawed yet a necessary evil or something?

It's the minimum bar for some dataset to be worth addressing.

Even then, it might still be wrong. What's so hard to understand

For one, it has nothing to do with critical thinking. For another, it is seriously vulnerable to scientists networking. That is just naming a couple of heavy shortcomings without even trying. You yourself admitted it has its problems.

>It's the minimum bar for some dataset to be worth addressing.
This is just asking to be played like a fiddle. How about using some critical thinking and common sense? In this case, the plot could have easily be checked by comparisons with other temperature/co2 plots.

>What's so hard to understand
I find it hard to grasp why peer review should be the golden standard in any case you encounter even after realizing it may not always be the superior approach.

I only trust people that agree with me on a fundamental level, sorry.

>Energy & Environment
fun fact: they literally published a crank article claiming that the sun is a ball of iron, even after it got trashed by reviewers.
>arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
the author is a real piece of work.
>thesunisiron.com/

The Guardian had a good piece about how E&E has become a dumping ground for pseudoscience.
>theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat