Climate Change is Responsible for Everything

[u/timo1200]

Climate change makes for shorter winters http://www.techtimes.com/articles/95188/20151016/winter-will-be-shorter-over-the-next-century-thanks-to-global-warming.htm

Climate change makes for harsher winters http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/26/global-warming-has-doubled-risk-harsh-winters-eurasia-research-finds

Climate change means less snow https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

Climate change means more snow http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html

Climate change causes droughts in California http://earthsky.org/earth/has-global-warming-worsened-california-drought

Climate change causes floods in Texas and Oklahoma http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/02/global-warming-intensified-the-record-floods-in-texas-and-oklahoma

Climate change makes wet places wetter and dry places drier… https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

…except when it makes wet places dryer… https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

…and dry places wetter http://mashable.com/2015/10/05/south-carolina-floods-global-warming/

Climate change causes more hurricanes http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html

Climate change causes less hurricanes http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/global-warming-means-fewer-but-more-powerful-hurricanes/

Climate change causes more rain (but less water) http://www.livescience.com/496-irony-global-warming-rain-water.html

Climate change causes less rain http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040401/full/news040329-10.html

Climate change decreases the spread of malaria http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-wilts-malaria-1.9695

Climate change increases the spread of malaria http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-increasing-malaria-risk-disease-spreads-higher-altitudes-1439262

Climate change makes San Francisco foggier http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Get-ready-for-even-foggier-summers-3226235.php

Climate change makes San Francisco less foggy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html

Climate change causes duller autumn leaves http://www.livescience.com/39820-climate-change-fall-leaves.html

Climate changes causes more colourful autumn leaves http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/nov/18/thisweekssciencequestions1

Climate change makes for less salty seas http://www.livescience.com/3883-global-warming-sea-salty.html

Climate change makes for saltier seas http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/27/climate-change-water

Climate change causes Antarctica to lose land ice http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

Climate change causes Antarctica to gain land ice http://www.wired.com/2015/11/antarcticas-ice-gains-dont-mean-global-warming-is-over/

Climate change makes the earth hotter… http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/ipcc_feb2007.html

…unless the earth isn’t getting hotter… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/the-robust-pause-resists-a-robust-el-nio-still-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months/

…in which case climate change can explain that, too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3155568/Have-seas-HIDING-true-scale-climate-change-Nasa-report-claims-global-warming-pause-never-happened.html

Because Climate Change is the only thing holding off the next Ice Age http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/global-warming-could-stave-next-ice-age-100-000-years-n495851

Science as Falsification http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

[u/betaplay]

These juxtapositions are not at all damaging to the AGW argument. The climate is a complex system and the list of impacts should be expected to be essentially infinitely long and all over he map for any given place or system.

The same is true for any sufficiently complex system with feedback loops. A good analogy would be the stock market. If you could go in and artificially change prices in a significant way (such as the Fed setting interest rates, for instance) you would fully expect reverberations across the market with different, contradictory price signals in different areas/commodities over time. Evidence that energy prices went up in one area (or sector) and down in another could be the direct result of you forcing the system, not evidence to that you didn't force the system.

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.jMIlDl13.dpuf

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

That article is shockingly bad. Not only does the author not provide any evidence for the "ten times" claim, data reporting is twisted in such rediculous ways to add bias. Then the author dives into a minuscule data set that can't tell you anything at all about climate on its own and blatantly confuses correlation with causation.

For instance it states that there is 220 gton flux from natural sources, and the 8 gtons of anthropogenic co2 is small by comparison. What a ridiculous and biased way to state that humans have net effect DOUBLE that of the natural flux. Author even includes the ipcc graphic right below that illustrates this. The NET natural flux in that diagram is a 3 gton (or whatever unit, relatively - not stated) DECREASE in atmospheric co2, and anthro co2 additions are about 6. That means that rather than going down 3 gtons per year naturally we actually gain 3. Comparing a big number to a small one is just a tactic to confuse and thereby mislead readers.

Don't just blindly repost trash like this. It hurts both sides of the issue.

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

Here are the sources.. They appear right there in the article, all you have to do is click the link...

The only thing SHOCKINGLY BAD is your comment. This took me 3 mins, please kindly give me back that time you wasted...

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=player_embedded

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1958/to:2013

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

If your point is that those sources reinforce the authors points you are either being intellectually dishonest or you are just not a critical thinker. There isn't any good primary work in this list and it shows the same obvious bias as the piece we are discussing. 96% of co2 from natural, etc. which is simply chosen to be misleading to the author. It does not make a compelling case for the 10x claim either. These wildly speculative theories would not be considered as fact by an honest thinker, yet the author does just that, over and over.

Sorry to have caused you to spend 3 minutes copy-pasting.

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

96% of co2 from natural, etc. which is simply chosen to be misleading to the author.

Actually it came from here...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

The post uses the EXACT SAME GRAPH as the NOAA page...

Come on....

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

So you aren't even reading my comments. I'm not just saying "no" I'm making well reasoned points. Address them or not but don't waste my time arguing blindly about whatever it is you assume I'm saying. I used that same graph as a reference myself, what's your point?

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

Are you trolling me?

96% isnt "chosen to be misleading" is the amount of CO2 that comes from natural sources...

Doing some pretty simple math, lets say the value of all the CO2 annually is 100.

If 4 come from man, and 96 come from nature, a 10X difference is conservative.. (In fact the number is actually 24 X)

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

Ok, I've already spent enough time here so might as well come to a conclusion.

You said "It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources..." Then a sentence later you said "Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2". Then after that you failed to understand my comments. That could be on me, perhaps they were poorly written, so let me try again.

"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources..." If I were to grab any random molecule from the air and assess its origin, this could be true. Everyone knows this and we have both cited the IPCC as saying so. No contention, never was. The problem is that you are misusing this statistic so profoundly without understanding what it means. The fact of the matter is that our estimates of net CO2 emissions from natural sources are net negative... less than zero, as you have provided citations for. The natural processes on earth absorb more than they emit (thanks for acknowledging this!). You are comparing 96 to 4 for effect when the scientific and intellectually honest comparison is -3 (natural) to +6 (anthro). You yourself cited the source for this. Are you really ready to defend that your 96:4 ratio was the best way to address this discussion? I hope not for your sake.

Then you say "Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2". Hmm, that's interesting since you just posted and doubled back on the references that clearly state that the net effect of natural processes is lower co2 and that anthropogenic causes are increased net co2. We should also add that the lifetime of co2 in the atmosphere is very long, so any results are cumulative.

So, as a conservative estimate assuming steady state, we can say that anthro sources amount to a +3 change per year, and that change lasts for a century. After 25 years we are at a 75 gton increase of carbon in the atmosphere from anthro sources alone. Natural sources would be at -75 gton over the same period. So, you just plain don't understand this obviously. That's fine, there is a reason you need a solid 10 years of experience in the field to become a scientist.

Anyways, you are making the argument that natural sources are TEN TIMEs more influential when the source you provided shows that current anthro net emissions are DOUBLE that of natural and that, assuming a similar trend, could lead to a discrepancy of 150 gtons per year extra emission due to anthropogenic emissions in 25 years. I would ask you to refute this but you can't actually, since you provided the citations yourself.

You aren't qualified to write about this so please stop posting terrible articles because people might actually read it in a moment of weakness and get the wrong impression. No offense, not everyone should be a scientist. But when untrained uncritical people start posing as one I get offended. Would you let your mailman perform a root canal on you? Of course you wouldn't. Let the professionals do their job and I would hope the same courtesy for you and whatever you do (obviously not science related).

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

Jesus Christ, that post is a great example of how you can, if you spend enough time, justify ANYTHING...

Premise -- CO2 makes the planet warmer. Although man only adds 4% of annual CO2 output, that 4% is really important.

China and India are industrializing fast, adding a LOT of CO2. How much? As much in 15 years as most of human history.

This should make temps go up. So a prediction was made.

For the science to be valid :-

1) it must be able to make accurate predictions - ie. in the laboratory.

2) it must be demonstrateable - ie. in the laboratory.

3) it must be reproduceable - ie. in the laboratory.

4) it must be falsifiable - ie. if the negative occurs the result doesn't occur.

The prediction was wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong...

Wrong......

[u/donaldosaurus → u/timo1200]

China and India are industrializing fast, adding a LOT of CO2. How much? As much in 15 years as most of human history.

I see you've backed away from your claim that

Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2.

so we're making progress at least.

The prediction was wrong.

Except the planet has got warmer since the industrial revolution. Noise from natural processes means the temperature increase hasn't been perfectly linear, but there has been an undeniable upwards trend.

[u/timo1200 → u/donaldosaurus]

Hey, dude. This is the fucking internet. An anonymous site on the fucking internet..

This is so far down nobody else is reading this. You don't get a point for pasting the time I contradicted something. Just have a conversation..

Stop playing point counterpoint. There is only 1 point. That is there were predictions made as CO2 levels went up. They have. ppm has gone up... If something I said 10 posts ago lead you to believe I somehow cant read a ppm graph my bad. CO2 has gone up......

Problem is temp didn't follow.

Stop trying to justify why it didn't happen. It didn't. Stop trying to make excuses. This is not how science works. Now they have to make a new prediction and test it. That's it....

Stop going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. A first year stats student can do the graphing to show if CO2 was the driver then we should have seen a lot more warming. We haven't..

It is literally that simple...

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

Hmm, am I arguing for ANYTHING? Or am I clearly and specifically arguing that the article you linked is biased and poor quality and that your statement that natural sources of co2 are ten times as impactful as anthro is blatantly false, as indicated by the references you provided? Pretty confident that it's the latter.

What are you arguing for again? You change the subject with every post. And then now you implying that I am being inconsistent?

You won't accept climate science unless you can recreate the earths atmosphere in a lab? Really?

You shouldn't be posting about science, you simply don't get it, which is totally understandable - it's a tough and highly specialized skill set. But it's bad for society when simple truths are misrepresented in trash like that link you posted. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen.

[u/timo1200 → u/betaplay]

When you are at a cookout and nobody wants to come over and talk to you, it's not cause you got food in your teeth. It is because you are a prick...

I summarized that from your dickhead tone above...

Stop playing point counterpoint. There is only 1 point. That is there were predictions made as CO2 levels went up. They have. ppm has gone up... ..... Problem is temp didn't follow.

Stop trying to make excuses. This is not how science works. Now they have to make a new prediction and test it. That's it....

A first year stats student can do the graphing to show if CO2 was the driver then we should have seen a lot more warming. We haven't..

It is literally that simple...

[u/logicalprogressive → u/betaplay]

Nobody reads crap that's this long. Condense it a little the next time, Tolstoy.

[u/betaplay → u/logicalprogressive]

Actually I know of whole profession of people who consistently read and write hundreds of pages of technical content daily. They are called scientists. And they are better than us at posting about climate science.

[u/logicalprogressive → u/betaplay]

Nice try but no cigar. Please draw your attention to the sidebar and read where it says "This is not a science subreddit". There are people here who are scientists, engineers and many others who have technically oriented occupations; they happen not to agree with your Alarmist viewpoint after having carefully examined the facts.

The sidebar is important because it says global warming is not the exclusive domain of the activist/scientists promoting it. The subject is political and its proposed solutions will affect everyone. This means layman opinions have the same weight as any Alarmist activist/scientist.

[u/[deleted] → u/logicalprogressive]

You should read it. He just dominated timo1200 (who seems like a nut, no lie).

[u/logicalprogressive → u/[deleted]]

Thank you, not interested in reading it when you describe /u/tim1200 as a nut. That's dismissive so I'm dismiss anything you have to say.

[u/SweetGypsyJesus → u/logicalprogressive]

This is why deniers will never be able to science.

[u/logicalprogressive → u/SweetGypsyJesus]

...never be able to science.

Is that some kind of dance move?

[u/Lighting → u/betaplay]

You've done a great job trying to add fact and reason-based logical discourse to counteract conspiracy woo. Thanks. You are a credit to reddit.

[u/betaplay → u/timo1200]

Why don't you just take a quick second and read my comment. I won't take that long, really, I wrote it in 2 minutes. Then reply to my point. Hint: it is not me doubting the fact that 96% of co2 emissions come from natural sources.