Global warming

Climate change....does Veeky Forums believe or deny?

Other urls found in this thread:

vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I believe. The weather changes over the last year or so are just too drastic along with the directional changes or certain bodies of water..as well as melting of permafrost in the arctic.

ur mom

I believe I deny. Or in other words I deny believing.

that doesn't make sense

I believe that there is certainly a scientific case for global warming actually happening, but I don't like the Cult Of Environmentalism that uses it for their own political ends.

I agree that there should be less pollutants being outputted during energy production, but that is because I can tell the air quality is much better in the country than the city.

I agree that we should use less fossil fuels, but that is because I'd prefer if we were not bound to the Middle East / Russia for the importing of a vital resource : petroleum.

I agree that we should recycle where we can, but that is because recycling, in my eyes, simply allows a longer period of sustainable use and re-use for a given set of resources.

However, what I don't agree with are the Environmentalists, who in my experience, both in school and in the realm of politics, is little more than a cult, people who want to be (((Green))), the same type of people that complain about non-renewable resources and refuse to nuclear power, the same type of people that don't want to use paper in printing because it's not (((Eco-Friendly))).

...

>Oil companies

>I believe that there is certainly a scientific case for global warming actually happening
I think that's understating things a bit.

What about the Cult of Denial that denies scientific facts that are not convenient for their political or religious ideology?

Is it better to be right for the wrong reason or wrong for the wrong reason?

There is data that shows a warming trend, but it is disputed if that data represents the temperature as a thermometer would, or if the post-measurement data adjustments that make the data a "temperature index" rather than a record of the temperature rise to the level of data tampering. It is my belief that the adjustments do rise to the level of tampering. Look (pic related) how the Japanese index suddenly diverges from the three western ones after the year 2000. It should not be possible to differentiate data by whether it was collected in the east or in the west.

Also, if the CO2 theory of warming was correct, then the time derivatives of the amount CO2 would match the derivatives of the amount of heat but we do not see that. Even if one accepts the adjusted data, which I do not, it shows that most of the warming was 1950-2000, and then less warming since then. (This lessened period of warming in the adjusted data is often called "the pause" in the unadjusted data.) However, the years 2000-present have seen unprecedented increases in the amount of CO2 pollution going into the air every year. Each year, we pollute more than the year before and the trend is concave up increasing. If the heat was linked to the CO2 via the kindergarden mechanism espoused by Al Gore, then the heating should be strongest in the period 2000-present, but the we see the opposite. The first time derivatives of CO2 and Temp are not correlated at all, but surprisingly in the years 2000-present the second derivatives are is anti-correlated.

So...even if you agree that there is no pause, and that adjusted temperature data is as good as thermometer (pyrometer) data, then one should ask how the second derivatives can be anti-correlated. it doesn't make sense. Full details here:

>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
>The Truth About Climate Change

IMO, this is the most reliable data set, updated monthly
>drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

>There is data that shows a warming trend, but it is disputed if that data represents the temperature as a thermometer would, or if the post-measurement data adjustments that make the data a "temperature index" rather than a record of the temperature rise to the level of data tampering.
Yes it's disputed! Disputed... by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>Look (pic related) how the Japanese index suddenly diverges from the three western ones after the year 2000. It should not be possible to differentiate data by whether it was collected in the east or in the west.
It should be very possible. You would know this if you simply looked at the site that graph was taken from:

giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/

>Also, if the CO2 theory of warming was correct, then the time derivatives of the amount CO2 would match the derivatives of the amount of heat but we do not see that.
False. The time derivative is instantaneous and thus does not reflect the long term changes in both CO2 and temperature. Global warming is not instantaneous warming, it is the positive warming trend over several decades. Within that time, the temperature goes up and down due to several other factors.

>Even if one accepts the adjusted data, which I do not, it shows that most of the warming was 1950-2000, and then less warming since then. (This lessened period of warming in the adjusted data is often called "the pause" in the unadjusted data.)
If you are allowed to cherrypick whatever stretches of time you like, you can find "pauses" at any time period. So by that argument there has been no warming at all. But when you look at the entire time frame, you see a clear warming trend, which is what we call current global warming. Like the "time derivative" argument, this is an attack on a strawman of what global warming is.

no u

>If the heat was linked to the CO2 via the kindergarden mechanism espoused by Al Gore, then the heating should be strongest in the period 2000-present, but the we see the opposite.
What we see is a linear warming trend from an exponential increase in CO2. This is what we would expect since the radiative forcing from a gas like CO2 is logarithmic.

>So...even if you agree that there is no pause, and that adjusted temperature data is as good as thermometer (pyrometer) data, then one should ask how the second derivatives can be anti-correlated. it doesn't make sense.
I already explained this. Neither the increase in CO2 nor the increase in temperature are instantaneous.

Please take your debunked memes elsewhere.

I believe industry is causing the temperature to rise.


I DONT BELIEVE WE SHOULD SPEND MONEY ON IT AT THIS TIME TO FIX IT. THE ECONOMY IS DIRT POOR AND NEEDS TO FOCUS ON BUSINESS BEFORE CLIMATE CHANGE.

I completely agree, divert 99% of the bloated defense budget to business. Then we will have most of the budget focused on business and can spend a bit more on mitigating future damage climate change.

if anybody thought that CO2 released into the atmosphere instantaneously created an instantaneous change in global temperature and there were no other factors, your post would have some validity to it

however, seeing as this is not the case, your post is really just a meme.

environmental issues are often long term things, easy to put off
the economy on the other hand affects everyone all the time
evironmental economics is good
make money off of protecting the environment, win-win

>it doesn't make sense because what you're doing doesn't make sense
not because climate scientists are wrong
you can't just take the derivatives of discrete data

>you can't just take the derivatives of discrete data
ever heard of a spline function fucktard?

I don't concede that GISS is a valid record of the temperature.

>Also, if the CO2 theory of warming was correct, then the time derivatives of the amount CO2 would match the derivatives of the amount of heat but we do not see that.

Retard alert

No one really cares what you concede. Not to mention that you got completely BTFO.

You must care at least a little to make a post about it on Veeky Forums.

This

There is no more believing than there is a belief in the roundness of the Earth.

> This is now a flat Earth thread.