Climate Alarmism

Socialism is the future and your idiotic pretending does nothing.

>Since we don't understand climate, no. We have to refit every 5 years.
How good are the best ones?

>Socialism
back to /pol/, back to /pol/ I say!

>Socialism is the future
>>>/reddit/

In order to accurately measure the temperature of something, you'd need to measure the exact same atoms at the exact same place with the exact same measuring device.

You cannot accurately measure the "climate's temperature because of this. There isn't even an objective definition of "climate", it's just weather over a longer period which doesn't mean anything.

>Socialism is the future and your idiotic pretending does nothing.
you have to be at least 18 to post on Veeky Forums

Here's a summary with a decent methodology that shows how, without refitting, the predictions get less accurate.

>if can't prove it wrong just cast doubt
you deniers are learning

fucking christ, /thread. some people are absolutely stupid.

Don't be confused, i don't think they're just inaccurate. They're wrong.
How can you claim an ensemble of *inequivalent* models, from which you sometimes throw one off if it disagrees with current data (and put it back in if it agrees in the future), *predicts* something? Climate models are just like financial models- their predictive power diminishes fast.
This way of doing "science" is equivalent to God of gaps. Shamelessly exploiting human irrationality, that's what climate alarmism is.

climate change is still a big problem, just because simulating climate for the entire Earth is hard doesn't change anything

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

Depends how you quantify reliable

>abstract title so shit it cannot get a presentation slot and had to do a poster

Climate scientists here, lol, poster halls are for undergrads and 1st year grad students. If you're grown ass adults and still doing posters at AGU you should rethink your lives. There are literally thousands of talk slots at AGU

Also Cato ""Institute"" lol

Condensed matter physics uses dozens of models, but those are actual models testing actual laws, not just a playground for sub-grid parameter-hunting
>Ad hominem
>Descends to "muh authority" to avoid explaining the errors in methodology (there are several)
The absolute state of alarmists

>explaining the errors in methodology

- let's cherrypick studies with low climate sensitivity

- let's cite one paper (Hargreaves et al. 2012, Annan and Hargreaves 2011, van Hateren 2012 ) several times each to pad out space in our figure because there aren't enough studies to back up my number

- let's misquote Andreas Schmittner's transient climate sensitivity from the LGM studies and call it equilibrium climate sensitivity

See this review in 2017 of the latest state of science climate sensitivity estimate from meta study compilation by actual scientist
nature.com/articles/ngeo3017.pdf.

3 degrees per doubling of CO2 are still the stone cold averages of all studies.

for Patrick Michaels, a 60 years old grown ass man to misrepresent the state of science in sad sad poster hall, a venue designed for undergrads to show their babby research because he couldn't get a talk slot in AGU is really really pathetic

gg EZ denier

Yet anothe "Tard or Shill?" thread. Why do mods even tolerate this silly shit? It has nothing to do with science.

>Cato

More like
>be 60 years old grown ass paid oil cuck
>poster presentation because he couldn't get a talk slot
>had to present his shit poster next to 19 years old undergrads
>muh cherrypicked meta analysis

This is the state of "respected" climate deniers

Blowing the fuck up pseudo science and /pol/tards is the most Veeky Forumsence thing there is. What's not to like?

>mfw /pol/acks unironically believe in propaganda that's been definitively known to be fake for over a decade
snopes.com/history/document/communistrules.asp
or maybe your post is just b8, I dunno

>I don't understand how confidence intervals work: the poster

>no methodology
>no discussion
>just introduction, conclusion, and a few figures with no statistics to back them up

also, obligatory
>Cato """"Institute""""

>it's another denier BTFO episode rerun
When will they ever learn

The amount of heat absorbable by CO2 in the atmosphere is already near its maximum. You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.

The whole global warming caused by CO2 thing is a politically motivated lie designed to tax energy and redistribute wealth from white nations to brown ones.

>In order to accurately measure the temperature of something, you'd need to measure the exact same atoms at the exact same place with the exact same measuring device.
Humanity has really reached a new low now that we have temperature and weather deniers.

>You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.
Source: the equation deep in the recess of my asshole

See for my review of band saturation effect. It is a real effect and a well known one, included in all basic climate models, but has been memefied by deniers as if adding more CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't matter now

#12
#30
#34
#73

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>Humanity has really reached a new low now that we have temperature and weather deniers

We just had a climate thread couple weeks ago where the denier doesn't believe in numbers
boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/9319652/#9321147

>The amount of heat absorbable by CO2 in the atmosphere is already near its maximum.
Not in the upper atmosphere.

>You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.
Heat absorption measured in what? The radiative forcing of CO2 had been directly measured and is well known. Nothing you are saying contradicts what climatologists say about global warming.

Yeah I was in that thread. That idiot is probably in this thread too.

Actually, Jim Hansen's models from 1988 were pretty spot on, enough to convince some conservative climate deniers to switch positions to the sane side. For context, deniers like to point to scenario A, which assumed exponential greenhouse emissions, as an example of climate alarmism, however as you can see the other two models fit observed warming trends pretty closely. Scenario C assumed a slowing of greenhouse emissions toward the 2000s, which actually happened, and it fits observations the closest.

>Upper atmosphere
Nigga we arent in the upper atmosphere

>Nigga we arent in the upper atmosphere
When you do the thermodynamic calculation to do the energy balance between visible light coming from the sun and infrared light leaving the earth you have to integrate over the whole atmospheric column

I remember a climate change thread some months ago in which a denier demanded that we show him predictive models that had proven accurate.
someone posted a paper presenting a model, and a retrospective paper comparing the model's predictions to actual measurements from the interval studied.
the denier then insisted that one didn't count, since it wasn't really predicting the future since the retrospective paper was published after the interval of interest. we tried explaining to him that you can't test a prediction of something that's still in the future, but he didn't quite understand it...

There is a whole 150 page chapter on IPCC dedicated for just that

IPCC AR5 Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

>10 years ago
>muh global warming. gimme gimme gimme
>today
>muh climate change (hello tautology). gimme gimme gimme
Climate "science" where cherrypicking is the ultimate tool, on both sides (deniers have to go to extra lengths). It's amusing, like watching two retarded kids fight. But it works damn well when it comes to money, props for that.

That's bullshit, only it only addresses but a fraction of my post. Let's consider other downsides of fossil fuels, shall we? Spillages, that wouldn't occur if it was still locked under the ground. Hydrocarbon products, as previously mentioned. Pollution in some cities that decreases longevity, increases risk of cancer, et al. Mhm...

>*only it only = also it only

You do know that heat radiates, right?

Climate alarmists are some of the dumbest people alive.
Climate change is media fearmongering just like ebola,ozone depletion and everything else that gets people to click on it due to fear.Only that climate change gets hammered more because big corps have new products you don't need to sell,like self-driving cars.
Why can't you realize it?

>Why can't you realize it?
Because I do primary research on climate change and I can see that it was the deniers who misrepresent the science, like and for comparison. A blatant selective cherrypick of meta studies, and a """study""" that goes straight from Introduction to Conclusion without describing any methodology, stats or math. This is as blatant of a misrepresentation of the state of science as possible.

And you are blinded by right wing propaganda while pretending to be woke redpill fag

Haha yea "Right Wing Propaganda"
You Climate Alarmists are so close minded you cant see whats right in front of you.
I bet you believe the earth is round.

> Scenario C assumed a slowing of greenhouse emissions toward the 2000s, which actually happened
As usual, climate alarmists caught in another lie. It's true that scenario C remains the most accurate climate model. However, Hansen defined scenario C as "a reduction in CO2 growth rates such that the annual growth rate is zero" That has simply not occurred.

The funny thing is that Hansen's study is probably the strongest evidence against anthropogenic climate change. His model which, posited on the idea of no increase in emissions, has actually held despite an increase in emissions, suggesting a negative feedback mechanism is countering anthropogenic emissions.

he doesn't know WTF he means,
he is just parroting what he heard on TeeVee

>we don't understand climate
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>a """study""" that goes straight from Introduction to Conclusion without describing any methodology, stats or math.
That's an academic poster you absolute hominid, not the full paper. A real scientist would have recognized that right away. Why is it always the non-scientists who fall for the global warming scam?

>you'd need to measure the exact same atoms
Lrn2instrumentation fgt pls

Why doesn't CO2 block the heat coming from the sun? Shouldn't it have a cooling effect?

>pseudo pscience
denialism defined

nice omg climate alarmist btfo once again
/thread haha yeah nice skeptics 1 scientists sqrt(-1)

(captcha: DANGER ADVICE)

>1922
try to keep up fgt pls

Any poster worth a damn should have other sections too. Look up on google "babby's first scientific poster template." Not having any of those means that you have something to hide with regards to your methodology

As I mentioned before, poster is a venue for undergrad to show their babby research. For a 60 years old grown as Cato ""scientist"" to not get a talk slot at AGU, where there are literally thousands available because his abstract is so shit that he had to present a shit poster is pretty embarrassing, especially since he blatantly cherrypicked the studies and misleadingly omit others that doesn't agree with him.

In the immortal words of Drumf, SAD

rekt

>when it comes to money
whatever you say, Troy
youtube.com/watch?v=5zRvYp8QKNY

Everything in the CATO poster is also in that preview, except the "Method" section doesn't have a proper header and it's instead at the end of the "Intro" section.

It seems you have only been able to
>Attack the poster format
>Attack the poster author

Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist. A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself. You have done nothing but throw insults and revealed your lack of scientific intelligence.

try again

I have already discussed this. Scenario C is the most accurate, but was based on the assumption that there would be no CO2 growth. As seen in , there continued to be CO2 growth each year. Based on that model, human CO2 emissions had no effect on temperature.

Ducking hell you're retarded. You're confusing CO2 concentration with CO2 forcing and you're confusing CO2 forcing with all GHG forcing. Scenario C means that total GHG forcing stops growing, not CO2 concentration. Also, scenario B's projection is the most accurate.

>A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself. You have done nothing but throw insults and revealed your lack of scientific intelligence.

I did all that here . See the meta study nature.com/articles/ngeo3017.pdf that doesn't cherrypick. Maybe if Patrick Michaels doesn't cherrypick the studies in his meta studies about equilibrium climate sensitivity, he could've gotten a nature paper also, instead of presenting a poster next to 19 years old undergrad in a poster hall.

>Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist.
How many times do I have to BTFO denier before they learn that real climate scientist do lurk this place to argue with undergrads whether 0.9999 = 1 in their free time

>Participant On-Line Antarctic Resource Information Coordination Environment
talk about a forced acronym

The sun doesn't send heat to us, it sends light which only gets converted to heat when it's absorbed by the earth. Light does not get absorbed by CO2 (which is why you can't see it) but infrared heat being emitted by the Earth's surface does.

There's no point correcting yourself, he isn't going to reply.

>Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist

Kek another day another edgy poltard BTFO

>I have already discussed this. Scenario C is the most accurate
The image in the past you're replying to disproves this, you utter moron. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and can't even recognize when you get BTFO. Your picture is next to the definition of Dunning Kruger in the dictionary.

>but was based on the assumption that there would be no CO2 growth
No, that is only one part of possible events that would lead to scenario C. Scenario C is simply a trend of radiative forcing, which friends on more than CO2. But this is irrelevant since scenario C is not the most accurate.

Yeah but this is Cato's track record. At this point we can just laugh at anything someone posts if it comes from there.

I'm not denying temperature, I'm denying that you can objectively measure the temperature of something as vague as "climate".

For example, if it rains, the raindrops will differ in temperature, the "air" around the raindrops will differ in temperature, the measuring device itself will differ in temperature. There's no objective starting point.

This. Venus' atmosphere is opaque to visible light so less of the Sun's light reaches the surface than Earth (despite being closerto the Sun) but the surface temperature of Venus is 200°C. Why? Because Venus' atmosphere is chock full of GHGs which block outgoing longwave radiation.

Mars is the opposite, with no atmosphere to trap outgoing longwave radiation Mars retains very little heat. With no heat to power chemical weathering (and also no volcanic activity because Mars is dead) no GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere.

There are defined scales and corrective measures. Like they don't just measure temperature, they also measure wind speed and all that stuff and they can correct their thermometers for things like the heat island effect and wind chill to get a reliable average.

What atoms are they measuring the temperature of exactly? It's all well and good saying they correct things which could make the temperature go up or down, but what is that objective, definable thing that is actually being measured?

>I'm not denying temperature, I'm denying that you can objectively measure the temperature of something as vague as "climate".
No one is measuring the "temperature of the climate" for fuck's sake. That's an oxymoron. The climate is the weather over time and space and weather is the state of the atmosphere, which includes temperature. No one asks "what temperature is the weather?" If you can't even get the basic language about this subject correct then maybe just MAYBE you need to fucking pick up a textbook and learn something before opening your shitty mouth and dumping verbal excrement all over us.

>For example, if it rains, the raindrops will differ in temperature, the "air" around the raindrops will differ in temperature, the measuring device itself will differ in temperature. There's no objective starting point.
This is irrelevant. Temperature is the *average* kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. One does not need to measure every molecule because a thermometer is constantly showing the average result of countless molecules transferring kinetic energy through it. These samples are then averaged over the entire globe to find the global temperature of the atmosphere.

>- let's cherrypick studies with low climate sensitivity
Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5. So you're saying the models are cherrypicked... By the IPCC!! LOL!

This argument kind of backfired for you huh?

>- let's cite one paper (Hargreaves et al. 2012, Annan and Hargreaves 2011, van Hateren 2012 ) several times each to pad out space in our figure because there aren't enough studies to back up my number
Again, that's what's in the IPCC 5.

This really isn't working out for you huh?

>- let's misquote Andreas Schmittner's transient climate sensitivity from the LGM studies and call it equilibrium climate sensitivity
Why don't you look at the paper yourself. science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385 Funny, because Schmittner is referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity

Swing and a miss again.

>See this review in 2017 of the latest state of science climate sensitivity estimate from meta study compilation by actual scientist
>3 degrees per doubling of CO2 are still the stone cold averages of all studies.
How do we know these studies aren't cherrypicked? I read through the article and there's not even inclusion criteria for that data. This is the kind of schlock that gets published in Nature these days?

>gg EZ
Cute. A shame science isn't a Call of Duty match where someone might think you actually won this argument.

The surface conditions of the Earth controlling for factors such as topography, wind, material that the land is made out of. There would be some agreed upon standards, like "assuming the Earth was a perfect sphere, the air was completely still etc, what would the temperature in a small patch of land of arbitrary size around this weather station be?". Then many different datasets from many different regions could be used to approximate the average for a larger area (with some uncertainty).

>No one asks "what temperature is the weather?"

If you cannot ask what the temperature of the weather is, then you cannot also ask what the temperature of the climate is. Neither make any sense.

>maybe just MAYBE you need to fucking pick up a textbook and learn something

Yeah I've tried to let other people think for me but concluded it doesn't work and only creates more questions. Maybe try thinking for yourself for once.

>Temperature is the *average* kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance.

What molecules and what substance is being measured then?

The molecules of air, I think they would use an IR thermometer nowadays.

>Scenario C is simply a trend of radiative forcing, which friends on more than CO2.
Are you actually delusional? It says what scenario C represents here >But this is irrelevant since scenario C is not the most accurate.
Wrong. See pic.

>Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5.
Completely false. Michaels completely ignored papers that used a pre-instrumental analysis of climate sensitivity. If he had used the same papers as the IPCC he would have come up with the same climate sensitivity. He did not. He cherrypicked the papers with the lowest estimates.

I'm still not clear on what exactly is being measured I'm afraid. Doesn't sound very objective at all.

And what substance are those molecules in?

the air

>unironically calling someone a climate denier
opinion discarded

>If you cannot ask what the temperature of the weather is, then you cannot also ask what the temperature of the climate is. Neither make any sense.
The point wrt way over your head buddy. No one except you is asking for "the temperature of the climate," because that's an oxymoron.

>Yeah I've tried to let other people think for me but concluded it doesn't work and only creates more questions. Maybe try thinking for yourself for once.
Yes reading a book will clearly brainwash you and stop you from thinking for yourself, Cleetus. You aren't going to think for yourself very well if you don't have correct information on what you're trying to think about. Which is why you keep making idiotic mistakes.

>What molecules and what substance is being measured then?
The atmosphere, as I said. Try reading everything twice and then maybe you won't be so confused.

So the temperature of the air is being measured? Therefore climate = air?

>The point wrt way over your head buddy. No one except you is asking for "the temperature of the climate," because that's an oxymoron.

So the temperature of what is being measured exactly?

>Yes reading a book will clearly brainwash you and stop you from thinking for yourself, Cleetus. You aren't going to think for yourself very well if you don't have correct information on what you're trying to think about. Which is why you keep making idiotic mistakes.

This assumes you have the correct information when you rely on pseudo-science financed by those who have an interest in doing so.

>The atmosphere

Therefore it follows that the atmosphere creates weather, correct? Are they different things?

kek

>Patrick J. Michaels
>Cato """"""""""""""Institute"""""""""""""""

Didn't need to read anymore than that to know the information presented would be fraudulent, much like Cato itself as an organization. Look up who funds Cato / who has funded them in the past, you won't be surprised with the results.

>Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5
Except that it's not. Figure 10.20. from AR5. See how many studies he excluded. Again a stone cold average is still 3C

>Funny, because Schmittner is referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity
Okay I admit that was my bad. I was thinking about the later UVic model runs about transient climate sensitivity during the deglaciation at PMIP (Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project).

>Are you actually delusional? It says what scenario C represents here #
Are you actually illiterate? That does not contradict what you're replying to. What gets plugged into the model is radiative forcing, not CO2 concentrations.

>See pic
I see satellite trends improperly aligned with the data in MSPaint. See for actual plotted data.

>Unironically denying scientific facts while throwing a tantrum when someone points this out

This was already explained to you. The temperature of the molecules in the atmosphere.

>This assumes you have the correct information when you rely on pseudo-science financed by those who have an interest in doing so.
I look forward to you proving it is pseudo-science. Until then fuck off nutter.

>Therefore it follows that the atmosphere creates weather, correct? Are they different things?
The weather is the state of the atmosphere. Why do you continue to ignore what is right in front of you and ask nonsensical questions?

>It's another thread where climate denier faggots getting B T F O left and right
Grabbing the popcorn to sit back and enjoy the show, thanks to the other anons who btfo these clowns on a daily basis