Uh-Oh: New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

>Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are "not a valid representation of reality."

dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett

B-BUT THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/oKinj
twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/880253051138920448
youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk
thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming
archive.is/50wVB
scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
celebrateboston.com/disasters/year-without-a-summer.htm
archive.is/48O9H
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D'Aleo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

global warming is a judeo marxist death cult

Oh vey goyim the science is settled now pay your carbon tax.

fuck off we need to protect the planet, and the temps dont even matter

carbon taxes are the best step to protecting us

Climate change much like the gender spectrum is settled science

>(((Peer-reviewed)))

I hope you're being ironic. Carbon taxes only serve to make us less competitive.

little odd that it isn't published in any journals...
interesting though regardless

Carbon taxes are just another money siphon ya dingus. The real way to protect our planet is to stop using the third world as our shitting ground.

>Stop consuming so much useless shit
>China, India and other coutries' GDPs plummet
>These coutries then experience a famine, drastically lowering their populations
>The environment gets a chance to recover

>Dailywire
Might as well be fucking Breitbart
Please, come back with a real news sources that isn't shrouded in lies and deception and maybe I will consider the possibility that NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS are wrong about catastrophic climate change

>No source?
I didn't think so

the source is in the article....

In this day and age, being a climate change denier is akin to being a flat Earther.

Here you go, archive it.
archive.is/oKinj

Climate Freaks are not allowed in this thread
this is a Climate Freak free zone

>muh 97 gorillion

Depends how they're levied.

If you only tax energy companies it can kind of work.

shoo shoo UN Climate Freaks

twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/880253051138920448

Science is never "settled" you fucking moron.

...

>>B-BUT THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
No such thing.

You can settle the fuck down cunt.

>ROYAL SOCIETY LECTURE
global greening
>royal society lecture
GLOBAL GREENING

youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk

royal society lecture
>GLOBAL GREENING
ROYAL SOCIETY LECTURE
>global greening

How's your first year of high school going?

How about you post the actual report and not Ben Shapiro's Facebook post?

thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

75 out of 77 is 97.4%

When idiots have a platform.

75 out of over 10,000 AGU scientists surveyed.

>dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett

everytime this comes out, you have retards crawl out of the woodwork to defend the "science" while their 'special algorithms' and historical data diddling are never addressed.

It's extremely clear to anyone who has looked at the average ambient temperatures in the United States, and I would suspect any country in the world, and see there is no abnormal variations since these temperatures have been taken and often printed in almanac's such as Farmers use. And what better way to get the real temperature than using rural ambient data? I suggest there is no better way. Surface temperatures of water are highly inconsistent and don't actually tell you much, considering the vast bulk of the data used to promote aberrant global temperature variations almost entirely rely upon these. Despite that, the historical data is extremely thin compared to other forms of historical temperature data, there just haven't been satellites taking these readings for nearly long enough to draw solid conclusions.

which is the truth kike

>B-BUT THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

Friendly reminder that anybody who actually understands enough QM to grasp how atoms work will agree that CO2 is causing intense warming.

If you disagree please provide a mechanism in which pumping incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere won't increase global temperature.

dats juss because of the windows and the lens and stuff

I've just realized I'm a bad person because I think this idea is at least worth considering, at least to see its pitfalls if any.

You are ignoring the fact that the macroscopic effect on the environment might be highly exaggerated. You and I both know how that models and the associated equations are only ever approximations that can become highly erroneous very easily. I'm not denying that the climate is warming, but both the rate of warmth and the effect on the environment is not easy to predict and it's not hard to imagine how the climate science is wrong and exaggerated.

We already have a distinct and measurable physical effect. Say whatever you want about the models, the empirical evidence of warming isn't a superficial trend nor is the increase in CO2 levels over the last 800k years. If anything I think models are underpredicting warming trends. There's too much pressure to produce conservative numbers that are less susceptible to skeptics and feedback effects aren't well accounted for yet. 20 years from now nobody will be having this argument.

this, and it's being ignored

oooy vveeeyyyy

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming


Working backwards from a politically-motivated conclusion


>The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

>The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.

>Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it...the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding.
>The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend:

Don't give them traffic archive.is/50wVB

it was real in my mind

(((Shapiro)))
I should have known

>the increase in CO2 levels over the last 800k years
???
The Earth had an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 20-30k ppm a few hundred million years ago, anyway, so even if we got up to 1k ppm it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Muh 97% lol. Just like muh 17 intelligence agencies is made up fucking bullshit Google it.

400ppm = 0.04%

Explain the pause faggot.

>dailywire.com/news/18433/uh-oh-new-report-just-dropped-bomb-key-climate-james-barrett
>A single study they haven't even managed to publish

When will morons realize that even if the surface temperatures models are completely bonkers wrong, the sea level and temperature models are the meat and potatoes of this?
The seas are getting warmer and acidifying and rising. The biodiversity is crumbling and the glaciers are melting. Carbon dioxide levels and pollution are demonstrably to blame.

More co2 more plants to grow and consume co2.

More:

>The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Picked up by the right-wing media

>Predictably, a number of conservative media outlets like the Daily Caller and Climate Depot picked up on the white paper. The Daily Caller even went as far as to call it a “peer-reviewed study.” In a sense that’s true – a number of other fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists who are technically the authors’ peers signed onto the paper. But of course that’s really pal review, not peer review; the white paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal because it obviously would not withstand scrutiny by scientific experts.

The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. The amount required to raise the temp by any significant amount would suffocate us.
The only way to get even slightly scary numbers is to grossly misapply mathematical models that cause a positive feedback loop in the system where negative feedback would apply.

Oh, now you have to understand Quantum Mechanics to argue against global warming. Nice

>The amount required to raise the temp by any significant amount would suffocate us

I sometimes feel as if people are intentionally trying to make the most incorrect statements possible.
A doubling of CO2 concentrations alone (i.e. ~570 ppm) would raise GAST by around 3°C. This is very well established from several independent lines of evidence.

internal variability

Then review all the peers then; check their online background. Who they worked for, are working for, what is their other work.

Dig deeper if you're implying this hole goes any further.

This whole global warming thing is such a dumpster fire. All this worry, all this money just being ironically burned away, and for what?
I yearn for the day when another volcano pops it's top and nothing goes down the way they predicted it would.

>be a volcano
>erupt
>send lots of co2, ash, and soot into the atmosphere
>my co2 in atmosphere doesn't immediately vaporize humans to a crisp
>my ash and soot block a great deal of the Sun's rays getting through
>watch as new mini Ice Age spurs the importance of survival over reproduction again
>watch as those who can't adapt, die off
>shrug shoulders and cause another eruption
>grin in amusement at remaining humans who are much more intelligent as a result of extreme environmental pressures
>everything went better than expected

You're a fucking idiot.
Read something other than your right wing rags and learn some fucking science.

Your either 16 or this is prime bait.

scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

Yea but propaganda spins the stats claiming 97% of all scientists agree, when it was .001% of surveyed scientists responding affirmatively to a single question to a survey with loaded questions

I member these threads
>t. oldfag

but why would you be interested in the opinion of, say, seismologists or groundwater hydrologists about the climate system?
How are they any more of an authority on climate than your barber?

And that's if you even care about "opinions", which I don't think anyone should. The only thing that matters is the preponderance of evidence, extensively documented in the published referee journal literature.

Get the fuck out of here. That document is made by someone in MS Word or some shit. The whole thing screams unprofessional. At least put some more effort into it than someone would in his bachelor's thesis.

>The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:
>Dr. Theodore R. Eck
>Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
>Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Seems legit AF.

Global shipping is the largest polluter; globalism must be minimized if this is a real threat. Casual shipping must be stopped immediately. If it's real, let consumerism be the first thing to die.
Show us it's real: kill your own companies for the betterment of mankind.

celebrateboston.com/disasters/year-without-a-summer.htm


archive.is/48O9H

Bruh. Really? After reading what was in the link, I can surmise that you didn't even grasp the point I was making and instead projected what you assumed was the point I was making, on to my argument.
FROM THE LINK THAT YOU PROVIDED.

"Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place."

The only eruptions that have taken place for the longest time has been from volcanos that produce more lava than anything else. Note I mentioned ASH and SOOT and not LAVA or MAGMA? Are you even aware that there are different types of volcanos and eruptions?

I hate you fuckers who hold up science on a pedestal, but can't even be bothered to learn to understand the shit that you worship so much.

Thanks for the back up, user.

You realize you're just painting a target on your retarded post with that flag, right?

This is the author, he is an idiot:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D'Aleo

Article debunked faggot

D'Aleo has become prominent[according to whom?] as a leading figure in the debate over man-made climate change.[citation needed] After hacked emails by and to Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), were made public in November 2009,[15] D'Aleo was a major participant in the resulting controversy,[citation needed] which became known as Climategate.[16][17]

And you guys take this bloke seriously... proof that this board is retarded

Climate change is happening. However it's nothing imminently dangerous as was the Ozone issue with hydrofluorocarbons. The carbon tax is idiotic because it makes it that much more reason to outsource, and no, I did not deny it, there will be weather pattern changes of major incremental severity. But China, Brazil, India will by then make up most of the carbon output as they begin to heavily reindustrialize. It's just so blown up to retarded proportions that it's cringe to bring up in conversations

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D'Aleo

>This meteorologist is a anthropogenic global warming theory skeptic, therefore his research is invalid

>this is how science works guys I swear.

You realize how retarded this makes you sound right?

>carbon taxes are the best step to protecting us

You truly are our greatest ally.

>living in the 2017 tranny xir xim pronoun nightmare
>not wishing the planet would be eradicated somehow
>not supporting and promoting global warming to ensure destruction

When someone mentions settled science,you can disregard everything he tells you after that.Its that simple.

hitler tried reducing their footprint

Newtons laws.

> move dirty production abroad
> sign emissions deal
> "Yay, we're making a difference!"
t. almost any western country

Not even peer reviewed, can not find any journal that contains this article - fuck reading that piece of shit

>believing this

It's amazing how Sup Forums exceeds at undermining its own intelligence. World's over by 2100, get used to it and make the most of life while the world is still basically-not-a-shithole.

>I've just realized I'm a bad person

No, just a rational one.
It's the same as aid for Africa. Cutting it doesn't make you a bad person, what would make you a bad person is realizing that your aid will only make the inevitable collapse so much worse but continuing because you get some pats on the back for it.

>Newtons laws
Those are approximations for macroscopic systems. There's tons of stuff they cannot describe because they are incomplete.

They do a good job for those macroscopic systems, but if you have any relativistic or quantum effects involved they break apart.

You need to help me here! They send out 10.000 surveys, get 3.000 back and from this 3000 scientist only 77 are climate scientists. Wouldn't this mean the 97% are true? You can only argue that ~2% of all scientists believe in climate change.

>NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS are wrong about catastrophic climate change

They're wrong this year for sure. So far this summer, it's been about 5-7 degrees celsius cooler. I fucking love climate change now!

That image is stupid. The whole "global cooling" thing was never a mainstream scientific opinion and is used as a strawman against modern climate science. The majority opinion even during the time of suspected global cooling was that warming was the most likely scenario, which has proven correct.

And your argument is foolish. What was formerly feared to be the worst case scenario prediction of an 2 degrees Celsius average increase in global temperatures (a catastrophic change in and of itself) is now a guarantee that even the Paris Agreement was unlikely to prevent. Projections at the year 2100 range anywhere from 6-8 degrees Celsius average, which will make the vast majority of the planet uninhabitable. To say nothing of the fact that the our food supply will diminish, our oceans will be acid, the global economy will be nonexistent and the entire world's population will be crammed into the barely livable regions of the Earth, which will of course facilitate the spread of disease. And you bet your ass there will be weather pattern changes. The worst storms of your life now will only be "weather" by the end of your life.

This an extinction event scenario, and it's partially the fault of climatologists for not being stern enough in their warning.

...

The end of the world is a scary thing to confront. Like I get why you guys deny it, it's comforting to think we'll last forever, or at least for a few more eons. But the reality is it could be over very soon. The vast majority of mass extinctions happened as a result of climate change, our plight is only different in how rapid it is, because we have actively facilitated it.

>This an extinction event scenario, and it's partially the fault of climatologists for not being stern enough in their warning.

Nah, it's a result of too many stupid and greedy people. Quit blaming climatologists. Inherently, it's people being too fucking stupid and greedy. That is the root of the issue.

You're right, that was the wrong thing for me to say. I DO wish climatologists had been harsher with their critics, but who knows what good it would have done.

Either way it's pretty much too late now. Maybe they already knew that.

Nah, don't worry, I am fine and not just running away from some scary thing or something.
I do actually work in science and am aware of how things are conducted, which is also why I know that I don't really need to fear anything.

Shit is always blown out of proportion to make yourself seem more important and secure funding. Predictive models that are not based on prior results (which they do not have, as this spike is "unprecedented") are shit and guesswork.

People worship scientists way too much, at the end of the day almost all of them are just regular people who invest a lot of time into a single topic. But that does not mean they are without fault.
You could take a look at metal organic frameworks for example. Those were hailed as the new successor for zeolites that would revolutionize catalysis, gas storage/sensing and all kinds of other shit.
And after years upon years of studying, they have fucking nothing at all that is even remotely close to application. And it's not like this was just a field of quacks and amateurs, they had lots of respectable scientists among them and quite a few publications in nature and science.
It's just that they are also human.

>Sup Forums is about science denial and pretending to be christian recently

i don't get it

>Peer-reviewed study
Is this the new and improved ''Simon says'' meme?

FAKE
FAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEE
RAAAACCCCIIIIISSSSTTTTTT FFFFFAAAAAASSSSSSCCCCCCCIIIIISSSSTTTT IIIIIIIMMMMMMPPPPPPEEEEEEAAAAAACCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHH DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

...

...

>Predictive models that are not based on prior results (which they do not have, as this spike is "unprecedented") are shit and guesswork.

You're actually right about that! Climatologists have admitted that climate change is actually occurring at a far more rapid rate than previous models predicted.

>Shit is always blown out of proportion to make yourself seem more important and secure funding.

I don't think you get it. Soon it won't even be about "getting funding" because it will be too fucking late. Even if every nation on Earth radically changes every aspect of how it consumes and produces energy we STILL won't be able to fully reverse it for centuries. It's not about fucking funding, this is fucking real life Hari Seldon crisis and we have to act now to diminish the worst effects of this since it's now no longer fully avoidable.

I think when you actually take a look, you'll find that the point about a current mass extinction event is pretty uncontroversial among paleontologists and life scientists in general.

This comes mostly from the observation that most of the mass extinction events in Earth history were associated with climatic changes.

The end-Permian event was essentially an apocalyptic global warming event

this is for v3.3
do you have it for the newest AMSU version 4?

the summer sucks so far, where the fuck is that global warming these liberals get so excited about?

Don't be Jew nigger, carbon tax only hurt round eye. China win cuz you faggit pussy bitch

Please can one of you science goys tell me the point of spending trillions of dollars to possibly cool the planet by 1/10th of a degree when it's possible that one of the worlds supervolcanoes will errupt within the next 100 years and spew out more C02 and toxic gas that humanity ever could and kill all life as we know it. I mean if you want to live in a hut and shit in a bucket in order to fight climate terrorism go right ahead.

i wouldve got away with it too, if it wasnt for you meddling kids

Because one boils down to basically chance and the other is nearly an absolute certainty to cripple human life within a century.

We had snow on 1st of June this summer.

Weather =/= climate.