[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Voyeur Cams | Click for more| Home]

/GlobbleWobble/: Antarctica Growing Edition

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.
Voyeur Cams

Thread replies: 335
Thread images: 57

File: 4a8259427562956.jpg (84KB, 606x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
4a8259427562956.jpg
84KB, 606x600px
CLIMATE CHANGERS JUST CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

>https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

NASA: Antarctica is growing, not shrinking!

NASA has BTFOd the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 report saying that Antarctica is melting.

Using altimeters on ESA's European Remote Sensing satellites for the period 1992-2001, and on NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite for 2003-08, NASA has worked out that Antarctica was experiencing a net gain of 112bn tons of ice/year during the 1992-2001 period, and 82bn tons/year for 2003-08.

The West Antarctic fringes are indeed losing ice; but this is more than made up for by the gains in the interior Western Antarctic and the Eastern Antarctic, which are experiencing an increase in the thickness of the ice of about 0.7in/year.

Ice is lost via melting to the ocean, and is gained via snowfall. But in another twist, NASA have shown that the period under study has actually experienced less snowfall than a few decades prior.

NASA's calculations show that the effect of the Antarctic is actually to be decreasing sea-levels by 0.23mm/year.
This is problematic, because the IPCC reckoned that sea-levels are rising 0.27mm/year due to Antarctic ice melting. So either the IPCC have got their sea-levels wrong, of the sea-level rises are coming from another source.

Where were you when climate changers got BTFO AGAIN?
How much longer can the facade last?
Think of how many influential names will be ruined.
>haha, dad, you're actually telling me that you believed in global warming? I'm so embarrassed! My own father, a religious nutter!
>>
TYB NASA
>>
>>7628505
>implying it's not tectonic uplift
>>
>>7628505
thanks based nasa
I had lost hope in them. But now... I'm in love.
>>
>>7628531
Presumably you can control for that by looking at rises in other areas of the globe or in sea level.s
>>
>>7628535
Yeah, and sea levels have been observed to be rising.
>>
>>7628505
Well yeah, this how it works. You follow one line of reasoning until evidence shows you that it's wrong, this is no different.

>b...b..but muh models must be wrong.

Ice melt models have been known to be, well, at least inaccurate for a few years now ever since they vastly underestimated the rate of Arctic melt (source: https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20070430_StroeveGRL.html). While certainly a problem for the predictive power of those models the general climate models still hold up.
>>
>>7628550
>while certainly a problem for the predictive power of those models the general climate models still hold up

Guys we found the IPCC shill in full damage control mode.
>>
>>7628554
Great post anon, you really added to the thread.
>>
>>7628556
don't rage anon. Let the denial flow through you and embrace it.
>brainwash the whole world with models that don't work
>shill policies that make no sense
>certainly a problem for the predictive power of those models
as usual.
>>
>>7628561
Guys I've found the big oil shill.
>>
>>7628564
no I don't care. But I certainly don't believe humans have as much power over climate as you want to make people think, and I certainly don't want to let anyone use it as an excuse to control people as much.
Climatology is the feminism of science.
>>
>>7628505
>haha, dad, you're actually telling me that you believed in global warming? I'm so embarrassed! My own father, a religious nutter!

This will probably be the future. It's too late to backtrack to our actual standpoint of "this is what our current best semi-empirical model shows" because of how scientism fuckwits burrowed into the community and even run the journals and societies nowadays.

There's a reason why so many prominent physicists left those places altogether. Soon we'll be reduced to soothsayers who more often get it wrong in the normies' eyes.


The lessons we should take from this is that it's never good to try and mindfuck the public when we are convinced we're right despite knowing our understanding is not exhaustive to the most fundamental level. But we won't.
>>
>>7628582
/pol/, your stupid is showing

>we observe the oceans to be currently rising
>I don't believe the oceans are rising!!!
>>
>>7628582
>But I certainly don't believe

No one cares what you believe faggot.

> and I certainly don't want to let anyone use it as an excuse to control people as much.

Yes that's right, James Hansen literally sits in on all policy meetings a personally draws up laws. If you honestly think that climate scientists have that much influence then you're what the old Soviet Union used to call a "useful idiot".

The most annoying thing about this post is that it conflates the ideas of scientists with the actions of politicians, one should inform the other but more often than not, it doesn't. You sir are retarded.
>>
>>7628590
see, your stupidity is showing now. Your strawman doesn't work.
As I said, I don't believe humans have so much effect on climate, I didn't say the climate isn't changing or that oceans are not rising or whatever.

Back to /b/.
>>
>>7628505
They better come up with a good explanation to where the gain is coming from, since it's not the traditional source of snowfall.
>>
>>7628599
>I was only pretending to be retarded
This thread is about about sea levels supposedly falling from increased anatarctic ice accumulation. Quit trying to pretend you were talking about something else.

Also, I love how easy it is to identify /pol/ users through their misuse of the term "strawman."
>>
>>7628505
But see anon, climate change accounts for this. Cause it's a change not warming. Good thing they changed the term before this turned up.
>>
>>7628611
sorry anon you're still trying too hard to conceil your rage.
Not going on pol either so... Yeah
>>
>>7628630
>he must be sooooo mad!
What are you, twelve?

Either present some logical arguments or get off /sci/. You're trying to hide from the fact that you were spouting obvious bullshit.
>>
File: Xy4UG9n.png (41KB, 755x627px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Xy4UG9n.png
41KB, 755x627px
>>7628630
>>
OP you're a dumb fuck. Do you know the difference between volume and area? If you don't then, this board is not for you.
>>
File: 1446255761554.jpg (38KB, 736x491px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446255761554.jpg
38KB, 736x491px
>>7628505
>But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Don't you love it when someones citation blows them the fuck out.
>>
>>7628658
>tons is a measurement of area or volume
>>
>>7628705
It's a measure of mass which corresponds to a volume.
>>
>>7628603
Besides seconding this question I also want to know what other possible sources of water could increase the sea level.
>>
>>7628637
>>7628640
>>7628611
>>7628596
>>7628590
>>7628564
>>7628556
alarmists on suicide watch
>>
>>7628786
Wow, you sure showed them
>>
>>7628703
You can pretty much confirm literally any belief you want when you cherrypick data.
>>
>>7628564
rofl
these fucking delusional retards thinking there is an alternative to oil
As if they don't hate nuclear too
As if rising taxes/regulation doesn't benefit big oil companies
As if they aren't a buncha shills pushing "the world is overpopulated and billions need to die" agenda
>>
>>7629584
>data can be manipulated
>therefore I can safely ignore any evidence I want to
>because the bad science man might have manipulated
oh you!
>>
>>7628505
Good, finally... now i can again take part in climate change discussion, no matter which board or social event, i actively avoided discussing the topic since you get instantly labeled a corporate shill or retard.

The real question is why they decided to unfold this information now? Is there still a tiny bit of integrity remaining or did they get their funding cut again?
>>
Does anyone here fucking read....?

"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
>>
>>>/pol/
>>
>>7629756
nobody believes alarmists anymore anon. That is the typical damage control strategy
>b-b-but we swear if we keep doing this, our models will work one day, for realzies
>>
To all the people in this thread that deny human interference with the climate. Realize that according to NASA's graphs temperature anomalies have been growing over the past 100 years in an upward trend. Also according to the article, sea levels are still rising and that's a concern. I'm not saying that we fully understand why this is happening and the role of humanity in it, but wouldn't it be wise to at least be cautious? Reducing our emission of gasses that we know Could cause a planet to warm up when they're present in an atmosphere would be a cautious thing to do. And why is it bad that people are overreacting to this data, when that means that governments and companies might be pushed to develop new technologies that will probably be more efficient in producing energy than straight up burning of fossil fuels? We could be saving all these fossil fuels to have a large longlived supply of raw material to make different polymers with instead of inefficient burning. Also new energy technologies, driven by climate change (over)reaction, could offer the benefit of having less impact on the immediate environment.
>>
>>7629800
what if the earth is adapting to anything we do, but by suddenly cutting emissions we send a wide variety of frequencies as input for the planet, and one of them is a resonant frequency of the system {earth} and it turns out we fuck everything up? We should all just try to stop living because we know nothing about how it works.
>>
>>7629821
We could base our cautiousness on logic and probability.
>>
>>7628505
>Antarctica Growing
I don't think you understand what an ice cap is
>>
>>7629584
So why believe anything about climate change one way or the other?
>>
>>7629843
>The overwhelming majority of findings say it's happening and we are the cause
>Scientists urge us to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as early as possible
>Alternatively, you can listen to a handful of scientists paid by oil/coal companies that say climate change is not influence by humans
well golly it might as well be a coin flip
>>
>>7629855
>the overwelming majority can be wrong because they want something to be true (confirmation bias)
>Scientists discover scams, cherrypicking, contradicting data, and not one model works properly
>Alternatively, you can listen to some so called scientists funded by alarmists money that say climate change is humans' fault
climatology is nothing better than tarot and astrology.
>>
>>7628531
Yet, sadly, many will believe this is not problematic
>>
>>7629855
I was making fun of >>7629584, because he basically said that nothing counts as evidence because you can cherry pic results.

>>7629870
>Scientists discover scams, cherrypicking, contradicting data, and not one model works properly
Can you explain this and provide examples of which models don't work and why?
>>
>>7629800
>Realize that according to NASA's graphs temperature anomalies have been growing over the past 100 years in an upward trend.


Because the politically motivated adjustments applied to the raw data have changed over the years, the raw data, the reference ground network and the satellite data all tell a different story.

History revisionism doesn't actually change history as much as GISS wants it to be true.
>>
>>7629840
I don't think you understand what understanding or thinking is.
>>
So the global temperature isn't rising anymore ?
Good news.
>>
>>7629928
It's terrible news, imagine how many alarmists that have suddenly lost their purpose in life!

Lets pretend we're going to fry to not hurt the feelings of all the doomsayers!
>>
>>7629897
>which models don't work
All of them. Pic related.

>why

Models are too simplified. It's like pretending a six sided dice and a 4-page long chose your own adventure book is an accurate model of Crysis 3.
>>
File: killus.png (33KB, 510x313px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
killus.png
33KB, 510x313px
>>7629932
>suddenly lost their purpose in life
Behind the veil of paid conformism...
>>
File: 1375519314829.jpg (39KB, 431x431px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1375519314829.jpg
39KB, 431x431px
>>7629932
The joke was that global temperature is still rising and showing no sign of stopping.
OP's argument is as valid as pointing out snow during the winter.
The climate is a chaotic thing and local fluctuations are to be expected, the only thing that matters is global measurement.
>>
>>7629944
>The joke was that global temperature is still rising and showing no sign of stopping.

The only joke here is your delusional denial of reality.
>>
>>7629941
>Hey I've got a plan
>I'll just group together all models, regardless of assumptions
>And then I'll just average over all of them
>But won't bother including a region showing the 2[math] \sigma [/math] or a a 95% confidence interval.
>I also won't include any errors bars in my experimental data, because who needs to see those.

What retard made this? If I handed something like this in during my undergrad I'd get it thrown back at me and told to repeat the year.
>>
>>7629966
You're retarded.

If you built a bridge with these shit-tier models you'd be charged with manslaughter and criminal neglect after it collapses at 10% of intended load, and going "muh error-bars" wouldn't save your ass.
>>
>>7629970
>Doesn't understand the objections
>Calls someone else a retard

kek.
>>
>>7629970
TOPFUCKINGKEK. You seriously are retarded. You went from building bridges to manslaughter. Its good to know you can't maintain a train of thought. A sign that you are retarded.
>>
>>7629966
If your 44 models all overshoot observations then you're simply wrong no matter how large confidence intervals or error bars you add for damage control.

>hurr durr, the earth is flat, just look at the error bars.

>hurr durr, heliocentric solar system is the same as geocentric, just look at my confidence interval for the orbital center.
>>
>>7629985
>"TOPFUCKINGKEK"
>Calls someone else retarded after going full meme
>Thinks engineers that build a death-trap cannot be charged for their catastrophic failures.

If you can't follow a perfectly logical argument then you're the retarded one. Of course if you have to start your post with a caps lock meme then you're retarded no matter what you put in the rest of your post.
>>
>>7629986
No you fucking moron. If I group together a series of different models, with possibly contradictory assumptions, and then group them into one graph then the resulting graph is literally worthless. Moreover, there's such a large difference between the greatest over shoot and the nearest fit to data that the cl's on the average would be very large.

>no matter how large confidence intervals or error bars you add for damage control.
>Thinks error bars and confidence intervals are damage control

Fuck me.
>>
File: 1430938503788s.jpg (3KB, 97x125px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1430938503788s.jpg
3KB, 97x125px
>Dad, I found an archive of your internet browsing history, and it looks like you regularly supported the idea of global warming
>Care to explain yourself?
>I'm telling Mum and we'll both move out and live with granny.
>>
>>7629990
>Thinks error bars and confidence intervals are damage control

They are when they are wide. It means your model is inaccurate and imprecise, or to paraphrase; completely fucking useless.

Especially when you have a lot of models and they all consistently fails to model reality.

The right approach is to admit that the models are shit at that point, but because it's climate science that is the antithesis of real science you instead insist that the models are right and the observations are wrong.
>>
>>7629998
>They are when they are wide. It means your model is inaccurate and imprecise, or to paraphrase; completely fucking useless.

Great so you agree that this graph is useless. I'm glad we could reach an amicable conclusion.
>>
>>7629998
>This is how you spot a retard
Great to know that you're retarded and agreed with the other anon. Your replies after this are going to be full damage control mode.
>>
>>7629999
Your reading comprehension is on the level of a 20 year old chatbot, as expected from an alarmist zealot.
>>
>>7628505

im not sure what's happening in this thread, but its not science

if it was science, you would all recognize that you don't know, because none of you do. then, you'd present your inconclusive evidence and discuss it without namecalling. you wouldn't be namecalling, because you'd agree that no one knew the solution.

you're not trying to find the solution, you're just trying to convince the other people in this thread

pretty pathetic
>>
>>7628727
>being this retarded
please tell me how you convert meters to grams
>>
>>7630064
>What is linear density
[eqn] \rho_{l} = \frac{ m }{ L } \implies \rho_{l} L = m [/eqn]
>>
>>7629944
>OP's argument is as valid as pointing out snow during the winter.
but then why do climato-shill point out heatwaves in summer ?
>>
>>7630069
so you're even dumber than i thought
>>
>>7630078
What do you have against linear density?
>>
>>7630056
/thread
>>
>>7630056
>pathetic
Welcome to climate "science"
>>
>>7630071
Why do they claim "extreme weather" is increasing on every hurricane or tornado or earthquake?
>>
>>7628550
>While certainly a problem for the predictive power of those models the general climate models still hold up.
Industrial strength irony here?
>>
reminder that /sci/ is being raided by /pol/
>>
>net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001
>net gain of 82 billion tons of ice a year from 2003 to 2008
huh. it's almost like the rate of snow accumulation is trending down while temperatures are trending up. weird.
>>
>>7630612
what warming trend would that be again? check your facts.
>>
>>7628582
>I certainly don't believe
>>7628599
>I don't believe
>>7629768
>nobody believes
Climate Theory is not a matter of belief.
>>
>>7629941
>le unsourced denier graph

>>7629989
>comparing materials science simulation to largescale modeling of incompletely understood chaotic systems
confirmed for no college background in any science ever

just once I want to argue with someone who has a vague idea of what he's talking about beyond regurgitating what he read on wattsupwiththat.
>>
>>7630081
Not him, but volume of a fluid requires a constant temperature.
>>
>>7630612
>112 bn tons over 9 years
>82 bn tons over 5 years

112/9 = 12,4 bn/year
82/5 =16,4 bn/year

an increase from 12.4 to 16.4 qualifies as "trending down" to you? are you a sociologist?
>>
>>7628505
>CLIMATE DENIERS JUST CAN'T HELP IT
They are compelled to use CAPSLOCK
>>
>>7630071
Maybe because certain countries are getting records after records of higher temperatures on both winters and summers.
>>
>>7630612
>>7631689
REKT
E
K
T


>>7630755
but it is, it hasn't proven anything so it remains no better than astrology.
>>
>>7628582

>I'm too young to remember we put a giant fucking hole in our atmosphere

But we don't have the power to change or environment, hey anon?
>>
>>7629909

So where are these original files?
>>
File: 1400352644854.png (154KB, 476x345px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1400352644854.png
154KB, 476x345px
>>7629833

Heresy! Burn him!
>>
>>7631765
>grasping at straws
stay mad
>>
File: 1302421475827.jpg (84KB, 634x461px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1302421475827.jpg
84KB, 634x461px
>>7631689

>112 tons per year for 9 years
>82 tons per year for 5 years

You don't divide you multiply. I'm dumb and even I know that.
>>
>>7631828
it says X tons over Y years, not X tons per year for Y years.
You're right about one thing though.
>>
File: 1394503546626.jpg (62KB, 576x432px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1394503546626.jpg
62KB, 576x432px
>>7631831
I would read the article again if I was you. Maybe double check your regents before making statements.

> According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

And just another thing is data collection do it would be 10 and 6 years respectively.
>>
>>7631834
>per year
ayy
>>
File: 1395009046447.jpg (174KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1395009046447.jpg
174KB, 1024x768px
>>7631801

>makes claims he knows nothing about
>someone fact checks him

>grasping at straws

Meanwhile I haven't even put my hat in.

I've only read the first 1/4 of it so far but, it sounds more of a anomaly than a game-changer.

Idk maybe further on but I'm in between an article about tri alpha and this new study you've presented.

Also this thread.

And a couple others.

It may take a while.

Plus I have to defend the house with this.
>>
File: 1422646946260.jpg (79KB, 588x437px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1422646946260.jpg
79KB, 588x437px
>>7631837

My point exactly, 112 billion per year for 10 years is 1,120 billion or a 1.12 trillion tons (depending where you're from) not 12.4b. Just saying.
>>
>>7629996
Pol you are so hilarious. You think you can scare people from accepting climate change just because you are afraid of everything. Normal people aren't this easily manipulated. Just like normal people aren't afraid of other ethnicities and cultures.
>>
File: 1314551345109.jpg (12KB, 144x145px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1314551345109.jpg
12KB, 144x145px
>>7631834

Fuck that's a train wreck of a post. I fucked up.

>regent
Should be
>references

>And just another thing is data collection do it would be 10 and 6 years respectively.
Should be
>And just another thing data collection would be 10 and 6 years respectively

'92=1
'93=2
'94=3
'95=4
'96=5
'97=6
'98=7
'99=8
'00=9
'01=10

Don't I have egg on my face.
>>
>>7631857
>normal people aren't this easily manipulated
>almost all people believe we participate effectively and measurably on climate change
k m8
>>
>>7631951
Because, unlike you, they don't let greed and selfishness blind themselves.
>>
>>7632027
no
because unlike him, it secretly makes them feel good to think they have so much power.
>>
>>7632029

We've already establish we do have the power to change the environment,

See; hole in ozone layer.
>>
>>7632036
ugh
it was juste a coincidence that it happened at the same time we were using CFC
>>
>>7632040

Just out of interest do you live in a city or in the country/ town?
>>
>>7632036
>hole in ozone layer.
Still there, still huge. Most of it not due to CFC but is a normal phenomenon.
>>
>>7632060
lol
>>
>>7632060

>most of
>>
>>7632071
>>most of
Most of global warming is due to natural causes, the rest is due to waste heat from our artificial nuclear reactions.

Feel free to calculate how little is left when "most of it" is removed. Then transpose that number to the ozone hole and you see where this is going.
>>
I admit, these threads really get me upset desu

just how stupid people post here
>>
File: be cool, man.jpg (53KB, 599x358px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
be cool, man.jpg
53KB, 599x358px
>>7632082

That was the point I was making. The little bit we add seems to cause all sorts of problems.
>>
>>7632091
I'm pretty sure we don't need the "little bit" to have problems. Earth was going to be like this with or without us. It may cause problems, but we should focus on the solutions instead of trying to work on causes we can't master.
Or we can try geo-engineering
>>
>>7632082
>the rest is due to waste heat from our artificial nuclear reactions.
Are you really this retarded?
>>
>>7631733
>REKT
>implying
>>7631828
>>
>>7632082
The ozone hole doesn't even have anything to do with global warming.
>>
>>7632171
The ozone holy hysteria wast he prototype of climate change hysteria. After pushing through a ban and action against an industrial gas(that enriched some producers of the replacement gases) they thought they could carry over the momentum to ban industrial society itself.
>>
File: 1437437938544.jpg (106KB, 600x411px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1437437938544.jpg
106KB, 600x411px
>>7632094

But we can't focus on solutions until we know what's causing it. How would you treat a problem if you don't know what causes it?
>>
>>7632172

Can I see your studies or evidence on these subjects you speak?
>>
>>7632195
No. Let me give you an example :

>oceans are rising? move to higher ground, build stuff that doesn't care about how high the water is (floating roads or whatever)
It doesn't matter why the oceans would be rising.
>>
>>7632172
>ban industrial society itself
Do you even read your own posts before you submit them?
>>
>>7632210

>what about the atmosphere
>>
>>7632230
what about the atmosphere?
>>
THIS IS WHY YOU GIVE MONEY TO ACTUAL SCIENTISTS

WE NOTICED TRENDS AND NEED TO STUDY IT MORE TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON

Things are changing,t he world is getting warmer, but does it matter is the question!

This doesn't mean we shouldn't push for renewables, but this just shows that we don't need to cut science funding.
>>
>>7632316
Your post is as retarded as your high heels spacesuit.
>>
>>7632349
Cry more, we need more studying to find out how this will effect us. You can't deny that unless you're a coal burning shill.
>>
>>7632354
I agree. What we don't need is policies that try to enforce unefficient sources of energy.
>>
File: 5qJnzP3.jpg (111KB, 610x1067px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
5qJnzP3.jpg
111KB, 610x1067px
>>7632357
Right, so we should stop investing even more money into resources that will run out eventually/cause pollution/potentially contribute to climate change.

Renewable are cheaper in the long run. Already, in nations that invested in them, is energy from renewable resources cheaper than from coal.

That being said, nuclear. Fuck the liberals for bitching about nuclear. Less radiation than coal, less deaths than almost every other energy source, and very safe if built by the best and not the lowest bidder.
>>
>>7632354
Given that the current studies go

>"hurr durr, no glaciers in himalaya by 2013!"

>"Hurr durr no snow in Uk 2015!"

Every fucking time I'm pretty certain they do more harm than good. If in 50 years time someone that does real science find a real cause of concern in climate destabilization it's going to be entirely fucking ignored because the field is discredited by then.

>Oh a coming ice age? It's because CO2 Riiiiight?
>>
>>7632370
I'm more interested in trends for sure. The trends and evidence show that we certainly are warming. It seems there are too many clockbait headlines about how this is going to happen,and how fast.

We should be doing things to ease it, if anything most things we can do will reduce our resource usage and benefit the planet as we want it in other ways. Less meat consumption ( Americans are the worst about this, Europe is breddy gud and most of the rest of the world is as well), less energy consumption, more renewables, etc.

I'd really just like to see less people. We don't need this many people.
>>
>>7632370
This post is how you can tell someone who only reads pop sci and the news.
>>
>>7632316
>THIS IS WHY YOU GIVE MONEY TO ACTUAL SCIENTISTS
But if we don't not study it then how will we be sure it's a fake?

>>7632374
>I'd really just like to see less people. We don't need this many people.
We've basically already got that. Birth rates are falling in most of the world. It turns out that social stability and education cause societies to drop out of "have as many kids as possible" mode.

>>7632370
>Given that the current studies go
>"hurr durr, no glaciers in himalaya by 2013!"
>"Hurr durr no snow in Uk 2015!"
Does all of your understanding of science come from newspaper headlines, or do you branch out into late-night news shows and youtube comments for other fields?
>>
>>7632383
>We've basically already got that. Birth rates are falling in most of the world. It turns out that social stability and education cause societies to drop out of "have as many kids as possible" mode.

Yep. Sex education and getting rid of poverty is great for destroying birth rates. I'm hopeful for the world my grandkids live in. My kids will have it rougher than me in some ways, probably only better because my wife and I make a lot more money than my parents did.
>>
File: image107.png (18KB, 549x314px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image107.png
18KB, 549x314px
>>7632374
>The trends and evidence show that we certainly are warming.

The fact that you can say this with a straight face means you're already made up your mind and would blame a blizzard in july on global warming.


Why do you pretend to be interested in observations instead of just going

>CONSENSUS
>CONSENSUS
>CONSENSUS
>CONSENSUS
>CONSENSUS

in every fucking post as that's what you're thinking in your head anyway and will always argue in favour of it.
>>
>>7632394
>1998
Go away.
>>
>>7632383
>newspaper headlines, or do you branch out into late-night news shows

It's ironic that you project your own single-minded zealot sources that are always in support for AGW as the reason for why I'm skeptic to it.

>>7632398
>Denying contemporary reality
Not so smug anymore when the roles are reversed, denier?
>>
>>7632394
>Only using 16 years
>Picking a year with a particularly strong El Nino.

It's like you people have just acknowledged that you have no intellectual credibility and have just stopped caring.

>The winter of 1997-1998 was marked by a record breaking El Nino event
>http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr9802/tr9802.pdf
>>
>>7632410
>16 years
Good job on declaring yourself retarded straight away.

Even if you ignore the el-nino event you get a similar trend. but as you fail rudimentary artithmetic that explanation is probably beyond your comprehension anyway.
>>
>>7632394
>>7632419
The quality of this bait is just depressing.
Don't you even care? Do I mean that little to you?
>>
>>7632394
Why did you cherry pick the data so much then?
>>
File: 6IAhpBY.jpg (148KB, 1024x1521px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
6IAhpBY.jpg
148KB, 1024x1521px
>>7632394
It's like you were born yesterday. 1997-1998 was a landmark warm year. Your cherry picking is bad. I remember that time like it was yesterday.
>>
What about Greenland glaciers melting? Is there conclusive evidence against that?
>>
>>7632467
Pretty sure that's still a thing.

Also, Antarctica is still melting, but snow is being deposited in other areas at a faster rate. Summing all the trends together isn't always a good idea, if you want to understand what's going on.
>>
>>7632426
>Do I mean that little to you?
You're on par with cleverbot, an automaton that parrots what someone else told you.
>>
>>7632476
yeah i get that
>'worst winter in years where's your global warming now'
>worst hurricane ever hitting mexico
>doesn't understand the climate change fluctuates seasons wildly

it's impossible to talk to these people
>>
>>7632489
>winters are caused by global warming!
>"worst hurricane ever" turned out to be a complete pussy once it made landfall, if it weren't for the very recent innovation of satellite tracking we'd never have called it worst ever.

you never cease to amuse.
>>
>>7632419
>Even if you ignore the el-nino event you get a similar trend
that would be a good point if it weren't false.

>>7632486
>this level of damage control
dude seriously?
>>
File: fu idiot.png (42KB, 364x248px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fu idiot.png
42KB, 364x248px
>>7632905
>that would be a good point if it weren't false.
That would be a good point if you weren't true.

>dude seriously?
I'll let your equal answer that for you.
>>
>>7628556

muh model is mo impotant dan da world be
>>
man made climate change, one of the pillars of leftist millennial religion.
Hail Bill Nye and Black Science Man
>>
>>7632410
>>7632419
>>7632426

Not cherry picking. 17 years was declared by climate scientist to be the amount of time needed to test the theory. Climate scientists said that 17 years was enough. Specifically, Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval)."Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature." Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

And here is the statistical study showing that the temperatures have flatlined: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050
>>
File: muhhiatus.jpg (39KB, 788x457px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
muhhiatus.jpg
39KB, 788x457px
>>7633006
>pay for publish journal
>no credentials in climatology
>McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

I chuckled.
>>
>>7633006
I'm baffled by this.
Even if this is the case, why not organize some change now before we actually do have to start worrying about it? We're not leaving the planet soon since no one seems to give a shit about space travel, so why not take care of what we've got?
>>
>>7628505
Oh yeah? well if global warming isn't real, why was it 70 degrees today in november? It usually snows here by this time of the year.
>>
>>7630755
The policymakers believe ipcc is giving them accurate information. This error might make a dent in their belief system.

The timing of this report is extremely unfortunate(depending which side are you on), right when the UN climate summit in France starts.
>>
>>7633067
noaa are liars
>>
>>7628611
But anon wasn't pretending to be retarded. You just lack reading comprehension skillz
>>
>>7633162
You're a liar.
>>
Why does it matter? I live on a mountain pretty far inland. Not my fault foolish men built their houses on the sand.
>>
>>7632918
Okay m88, here is the temperature record since 1880. Note the clear rising trend. Note also that if you measure from 1998 to present, you get a slight decline. Note also that if you measure from 1997 or 1999 to present, or indeed if you look at a larger (multi-year) trend, temperature is clearly increasing. By cherry-picking 1998, an obvious anomaly due to the unusually strong El Nino effect that year, you distort the actual temperature record.
>http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

See, the difference between me calling you a liar and you calling me a liar is that I actually have data to back it up, and you don't. And most importantly, I actually source my data instead of throwing unlabeled graphs at people and demanding that they be accepted as gospel proof of my claims.
>>
>>7633242
the ground surface record is contaminated by the urban heat island effect

Theres no actual heating going on
Also they editted the temperatures of 100 years ago downwards to increase the "trend"
>>
File: goal posts.jpg (9KB, 240x192px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
goal posts.jpg
9KB, 240x192px
>>7633067
>McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

> You, pathetic ad hominem.
> Believe AGW is true because Climate "Scientists" can't find a plausible way the temperatures could go up without muh CO2
> Intelligent design people can't find a plausible way that life could exist without a designer.
> You, the Climate Creationist.

Sorry that Ben Santer and many co-authors as well as other scientists actually had the courage to publish a falsifiability criterion for AGW. And now that the criterion was met, you want to pretend it doesn't count.
> You, living proof that Climate "Science" is unfalsifiable.
Keep moving those goal posts.
>>
>>7633110
>Even if this is the case, why not organize some change now before we actually do have to start worrying about it?
The theory has been falsified. Your statement assumes its still true.
>>
>>7633242
The NASA GISS book for rewriting the temperature history.
>nb4 conspiracy theory.
The temperature history has changed, deal with it.
>>
>>7633253
where are the proof
>>
It's threads like these that remind me why I stay away from /sci/.

As someone who has studied ocean acidity levels and mean temperatures in the north east Queensland region, I find it baffling anyone can buy into the denialist propaganda.
Even a simple google search would show you a vast amount of money invested into denying human effected climate change, and by extension global warming, is derived from coal mining and oil groups....

Anyone who makes a statement without doing their own research first, even reading the 'journals' on both sides is not worthy of taking a STEM field (notice that references against human driven climate change use excessive 'might not' or 'we're unsure' language to stay technically correct but drive questioning).

Well that rant went on for longer that I intended.
Oops.
>>
File: IPCC Authoritarian.png (415KB, 907x587px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IPCC Authoritarian.png
415KB, 907x587px
>>7633292
>Even a simple google search would show you a vast amount of money invested into denying human effected climate change, and by extension global warming, is derived from coal mining and oil groups....

>its the evil oil company conspiracy.
Yeah, its not like the United Nations wants your money.
>>
When /sci/ talks about something in your field of expertise, it becomes really apparent how fucking retarded all of you are, christ
>>
>>7633006
Your 'refutation' is highly sensitive to both the choice of dataset and the choice of starting year. It's as robust as wet tissue paper, stop pretending otherwise.

>>7633253
>the ground surface record is contaminated by the urban heat island effect
No it hasn't. The effect from the UHI island effect is small, and already corrected for. Plus, you just throw the affected stations away and get the same results if it really upsets you.
Seriously, you can do this yourself.

>>7633170
Do you also eat food?

>>7633275
>The temperature history has changed, deal with it.
Yes, because we have better data now.

Also, even if your precious red and blue lines were back in their 1980's configuration, it would barely affect the trend at all by now.

>>7633307
>Yeah, its not like the United Nations wants your money.
Um, what?
The UN isn't making any money off of climate change. Hell, by talking about it they've lost a lot of good will from governments and major companies that would rather just ignore it.
>>
>>7633292

Let me educate you a bit. You can do all the science you want but none of it alone will solve the problem. The politicians will solve the problem. You can scream, kick, rant, it will do nothing because you fail to communicate to the politicians.
This thread is about yet another ipcc failure. The ipcc did it again, they screwed up. They said it would melt, but it didn't. The ipcc is the way you communicate to the politicians, internet debates are not the way. You as scientist should tell ipcc to fuck of with these uncertainties that they keep putting in to the report, they do more harm than good, they eat the credibility of your own message.
You can rant about scientific method and keep telling how this is supposed to be, the science is never settled and all that. But when you make a report that is meant for politicians to be read, to act on, it should be on solid grounds, if it's not you are asking for trouble.
>>
>>7633334
I don't follow you at all.
How is discovering an entirely distinct process going on in Antarctica "yet another ipcc failure". Are members of the IPCC supposed to be oracles now?

And what the hell does "tell ipcc to fuck of with these uncertainties that they keep putting in to the report" even mean? The uncertainties are part of the data, they don't just "go away".

>But when you make a report that is meant for politicians to be read, to act on, it should be on solid grounds,
The IPCC reports ARE on solid grounds.
>>
>>7633332
>>>7633006 (You)
>Your 'refutation' is highly sensitive to both the choice of dataset and the choice of starting year. It's as robust as wet tissue paper, stop pretending otherwise.

Not sensitive to year chosen. You go backwards from the current year. When a year occurs such that you can go back 17 years, the theory has been falsified. As it is right now. The data set, of course, should be satellite temps as they avoid the urban heat island effect, and the 70% of the earth's surface that is not instrumented.
>>
>>7633353
>Not sensitive to year chosen.
The tend you drew entirely disappears if you add or take away a few years. That's sensitive as fuck.

>When a year occurs such that you can go back 17 years, the theory has been falsified
No, the idea that the threshold for noise is at 17 years is falsified. The trend is still up.

Also, what the fuck is with your dataset? 2014 is generally considered the warmest year on record, but you have it slightly below average. And 2015 is supposed to be warmer again.
>>
>>7633332
>The effect from the UHI island effect is small,
It's huge, dwarfs the supposed heating trend.
>and already corrected for
? in what way?

>Plus, you just throw the affected stations away
They are ALL affected
>>
>>7633381
>It's huge, dwarfs the supposed heating trend.
Prove it.

>? in what way?
By comparing affected stations with unaffected stations.

>They are ALL affected
Uh, no they aren't. Only stations in significant urban areas are.
>>
>>7633387
even "rural" stations are surrounded by large towns
paved areas, AC units, etc

You cannot "correct" models, when all the stations have micro site contamination that massively skews the numbers!

>>7633349
I think its very telling that only PC, leftist politicians believe this shit about global warming
Just more hyped up fake shit pushing a globalist agenda.
>>
>>7633399
>even "rural" stations are surrounded by large towns paved areas, AC units, etc
Not all of them.

>You cannot "correct" models, when all the stations have micro site contamination that massively skews the numbers!
Sure you can, just measure the local strength of the UHI effect.

This isn't some magic issue. Climatologists solved this years ago.

>I think its very telling that only PC, leftist politicians believe this shit about global warming
Uh, what?
First of all, are you really trying to evaluate science based on what politicians think?
Secondly, even most left-wing politicians have done everything possible to avoid doing anything about global warming. If it was part of their "globalist agenda", why the fuck are they so lazy about it?
>>
>>7633349
>Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/SB40_research_dialogue_hezel_wgI.pdf

>Are members of the IPCC supposed to be oracles now?
Let's turn it this way, every mistake they make will damage their credibility. So they better start becoming oracles. You can read the paper yourself. Some findings have more confidence than others. Why leave findings that have weak confidence in to the paper, they are going to be used against them.

>The uncertainties are part of the data, they don't just "go away".
It's your job to figure out the conclusion from the data. The politician is not going to do it for you.

>The IPCC reports ARE on solid grounds.
They are not, see OP
>>
>>7633436
Science is conducted, and thus written, with all data shown. Both that which shows a high degree of confidence an that which does not. Otherwise it's hiding data, which indicates both bad science and an ulterior motive (usually trying to look good).

I can understand that information needs to be conveyed to politions, and in a perfect world those in power should have a baseline understanding of what they're in charge of. Shame that's not the case.

I don't know how to do this. I don't know how you would convey data in its entirety without sacrificing what it means to do good science.
But it's really frustrating. No one ever listens to the geologist until shit hits the fan, then it's always his fault.
>>
>>7633452
Yes the political system is to be blamed also. It demands absolute truths.
>>
>>7633317
Yup.
Especially these threads.
Why am I still here?
>>
IPCC ON LIFE SUPPORT
>>
>>7633372
>>When a year occurs such that you can go back 17 years, the theory has been falsified
>No, the idea that the threshold for noise is at 17 years is falsified. The trend is still up.
Kek, doesn't look at satellite temps
>Also, what the fuck is with your dataset? 2014 is generally considered the warmest year on record,
After rewriting the temperature record for the umpteenth time, pic related.

but you have it slightly below average. And 2015 is supposed to be warmer again.

The data sets are satellite temperatures, RSS and UAH. As opposed to urban-heat-island-tainted, 70% of-the-world's-surface-is-not-instrumented-so-will-guess-data.
>>
>>7633307
>>>7633275 (You)
>>The temperature history has changed, deal with it.
>Yes, because we have better data now.
Yes, because we have better data tampering now. >>7633471
FTFY
>>
>>7633332
>Um, what?
>The UN isn't making any money off of climate change. Hell, by talking about it they've lost a lot of good will from governments and major companies that would rather just ignore it.
Didn't say they were making money. I said they want to make money.
>>
File: uhi raw vs urban.gif (68KB, 857x525px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
uhi raw vs urban.gif
68KB, 857x525px
>>7633332
>No it hasn't. The effect from the UHI island effect is small, and already corrected for. Plus, you just throw the affected stations away and get the same results if it really upsets you.
>Seriously, you can do this yourself.

> I just looked at "homogenized data" which spreads UHI to rural stations and guess what, now every station has UHI tainting, so rural data is just as tainted as urban data. NASA/NOAA said this is how you "correct" for UHI.
Rubbish.
Here's an actual comparison, pic related. Raw data vs. Urban data. Urban data grows to half a degree hotter than all the raw data. Since raw data includes urban data, the UHI effect is actually worse.
>>
>republishits think this problem is simple enough to sufficiently handle by posting "gotcha" graphs on an internet forum

People have spent their lives studying this shit and have yet to even prove anything definitively. However, 99% of them have found that it points towards man-made climate change being real.
>>
File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Ohwow.jpg
39KB, 562x437px
>>7633259
>And now that the criterion was met, you want to pretend it doesn't count.
Only in your head. You're supposed source for this claim is pure pseudoscience and literally a "climate creationist". Oh and look at how mad you're getting. Are you getting bullied by those big mean climatologists because they don't believe your little fairy tale?
>>
>>7633515
> However, 99% of them
maybe more like
a quarter of them
who are paid to believe it
>>
File: heat_content2000m.png (31KB, 566x380px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
heat_content2000m.png
31KB, 566x380px
>>7633436
>Let's turn it this way, every mistake they make will damage their credibility. So they better start becoming oracles.
Only if your expectation is that they should be oracles. Science doesn't just exist for the convenience of politicians. There's this thing called "reality". It's big, messy, hard to predict, and if you ignore it things got to shit very fast.

>It's your job to figure out the conclusion from the data. The politician is not going to do it for you.
They do that already.

>They are not, see OP
That's far from enough to actually throw out the reports. The reports change over time in response to this kind of shit, thats why they keep making new ones.

>>7633471
>Kek, doesn't look at satellite temps
Satellite temps have a bunch of issues,`but they still show clear surface warming.

>After rewriting the temperature record for the umpteenth time, pic related.
1981: +0.6C difference
1999: +0.6C difference
2014: +0.6C difference
Um?

Just checking, but you do know that the zero on those graphs is arbitrary, right?

>The data sets are satellite temperatures, RSS and UAH. As opposed to urban-heat-island-tainted, 70% of-the-world's-surface-is-not-instrumented-so-will-guess-data.
Surface measurements are generally considered by far to the be most reliable way of measuring the surface temperature. And like I've already said, the UHI effect is already well-studied.

But if you really want to remove ALL the noise, why don't you look at ocean heat content? They're generally regarded as the cleanest measurement of the actual energy balance.

>>7633477
>Yes, because we have better data tampering now.
Claiming that there's a global conspiracy isn't the same as demonstrating it.

>>7633482
>Didn't say they were making money. I said they want to make money.
So they're not just out to get you, they're also incompetent. It's nice to know your life is a Saturday-morning cartoon.

>>7633543
>maybe more like a quarter of them who are paid to believe it
Prove it.
>>
>>7633259
>you're not allowed to ignore pseudoscience promulgated by people who have no expertise in the field! you have to accept my cited sources, no matter how meaningless and biased they are! if an economist says the earth isn't warming, you have to believe him!

>>7633471
>le unlabeled denier graph
that one's particularly egregious. no X-axis, no source, no labels explaining what the y-axis is even measuring...and it's pretty much the same graph in all three frames!

>>7633452
>No one ever listens to the geologist until shit hits the fan, then it's always his fault.
meanwhile, injection wells are causing earthquakes in Oklahoma. at my uni we had a guest speaker who's an expert on the topic, and in his Q&A he straight up said that the problem won't get the funding it needs until a quake causes a big TV to fall on a child. fucking ostrich stratagems, man....

>>7633496
yes, there IS an urban heat island effect.
you do REALIZE, though, that the raw data are not being presented? the artifact is small, and it routinely corrected for and has been for decades.
the fact that we correct for it is why you guys throw shit fits whenever 30-year-old temperature records are slightly discordant from modern ones; there are slight differences because measuring artifacts are being corrected. either we're supposed to correct the data based on our knowledge of the measuring system, or we're not; make up your minds already.
>>
>>7631733
>it hasn't proven anything
Lrn2theory
then Lrn2proof
then note that one of these things is not like the other.
>>
>>7633157
>I know what the policymakers believe
No, you don't.
>>
>>7631951
>I know what almost all people believe
No, you don't.
>>
>>7633399
>I know what leftist politicians believe
No, you don't.
>>
File: 04a[1].jpg (76KB, 500x650px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
04a[1].jpg
76KB, 500x650px
>>7633872
>>7633874
>>7633876
>>7633877
yes I do.
Pic related to you
>>
climatekeks on suicide watch
>>
>>7633770
>the fact that we correct for it is why you guys throw shit fits whenever 30-year-old temperature records are slightly discordant from modern ones

except they are correcting modern temperatures UPWARDS
and "correcting" old temperatures DOWNWARDS
>>
THEY CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT
>>
fuck i love a good climate rage thread.

hours of laughs at both sides.
>>
>>7633399

> globalist agenda

Finding patterns where there are none.
Ascribing sinister agency to current events.
Hallmarks of a conspiracy nut-job.
>>
>>7630078
We know the density for ice, you fucking troglodyte. The relationship between mass and volume is density. There's your stupid fucking reply, now go shit up some other thread.
>>
>>7633970
in some cases, yes, because in recent years we've grown more aware of urban heat island effects and moved weather stations to more sheltered locations, along with better standardizing their placement. having cheap and reliable wireless systems allows us to plant sensors out in the boonies instead of having to hang them outside our windows and still get readings.
in other cases, there is no such clear "old temperatures lower, new temperatures higher" pattern. why don't you know about this? because all you read is what's posted on denier blogs, and they only select the evidence that they think supports their point. confirmation bias will getcha if all you do is cherrypick.

Again, you guys whine that the data aren't accurate and need to be corrected. And then when the data are corrected based on the measured sampling artifacts, you complain that sometimes the corrections make observed trends slightly stronger. you've gotten it into your head that unless the corrections make the trend you don't like disappear, they must be the result of a conspiracy to falsify data. you've made up your mind and are trying to force the evidence to fit your preconceived opinions, which is a sorry state of affairs even for
>/sci/ - Religion and Homework


>>7633887
>theories have to be proven to be accepted as true
>I know what the policymakers believe
>I know what almost all people believe
>I know what leftist politicians believe
>I know everything but can't be bothered to cite a source that's not an economist working for a think tank dedicated to climate denial
srsly no.
>>
>>7634510
>there is no such clear "old temperatures lower, new temperatures higher" pattern.
There is. feel freee to check historical data on individual stations.

Moron.
>>
>>7634518
>in other cases, there is no such clear "old temperatures lower, new temperatures higher" pattern.
that's the full sentence. are you saying that for literally every individual station, corrections have both lowered older temperatures and raised newer temperatures? because I think you're having some trouble reading what I actually wrote.

Moron.
>>
>>7635043
>are you saying that for literally every individual station, corrections have both lowered older temperatures and raised newer temperatures?

It's applied to enough of them to be history revisionism-tier.

Hell I wouldn't be suprised if it literally is applied to every single one. It probably is.
>>
>>7633292
>Even a simple google search would show you a vast amount of money invested into denying human effected climate change, and by extension global warming, is derived from coal mining and oil groups....

citation needed
>>
>>7629944
/thread
>>
File: co2_data_mlo.png (117KB, 792x579px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
co2_data_mlo.png
117KB, 792x579px
climate change denies confuse me, what do you hope to gain form denying something blindingly obvious? this graph should be all you need to see the truth, give me one reason for this increase that inst anthropogenic
>>
>>7635085
>It's applied to enough of them to be history revisionism-tier.
So correcting measurements based on intensive study of sampling artifacts is good and necessary if it weakens observed trends, but bad and fraudulent if it strengthens observed trends. Or maybe that only applies to trends you personally don't like?
What you have been saying all along is that because the applied corrections go against your personal opinions, they're evidence of fraud. In other words, your opinions mean more than the methodology and its results put together.

>>7635135
>deniers demanding citations
ʞƎʞ ԀO┴

>>7635283
they think that NOAA is lying in order to scare up funding. or they think that CO2 magically has no effect on the climate. or they gloss over that issue altogether while pointing out what they, with their limited understanding of the concepts involved, perceive to be inconsistencies in the data.
>>
Whilst that article is interesting, I may have totally misread it but, I believe so have some of you. Doesnt it state that for the last 10,000 years the ice mass has slowly increased year on year? Therefore the fact that between x-y it increased by 112 billion tons, shouldn't it continue to slowly increase at the same rate it has? The fact it has stopped increasing in mass by about 20% over years y-z surely also indicates that something is happening with the climate?

As they state this gain in mass is in a certain area of the Antarctic, other areas are rapidly decreasing in mass. The slowdown in the mass gain combined with the rapid decreasing mass of other areas could clearly lead to massive issues.
>>
>>7635283
extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing
helps plants grow
>>
>>7633516
So B. D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, T. M. L. Wigley, S.Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, T. R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, F. J. Wentz, Phil Jones, and the NOAA are all Climate Creationists. I'm sure that this will come as a surprise to them.

Your cognitive dissonance must be painful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who...is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values
>>
>>7633332
>>>7633275 (You)
>>The temperature history has changed, deal with it.
>Yes, because we have better data now.

Was there a treasure trove of temperature data hidden somewhere? Perhaps under your bed? Or did you use a time machine to go back to the past and install new, improved thermometers?
>>
>>7635689
ah, the endless plausible-sounding claim of the deniers
in which environments, exactly, is carbon dioxide a limiting factor? because in almost all land environments, plant growth is limited by nitrate or phosphate. and in the oceans, growth is limited typically by iron.
if CO2 was really the limiting factor in primary productivity, adding fertilizer (rich in nitrate and phosphate) to soil would have negligible effect.
but yeah, that particular lie SOUNDS plausible to the layman who doesn't know about these things, which is why it's particularly vexing.

>>7635788
we have better, more reliable tools these days.
we can get more accurate temperature readings with those better tools.
we can measure the difference between temperatures measured with the old tools and the new tools and derive the relative error of the old tools.
we then subtract this relative error from the old measurements.
fuck sake, it's not a difficult concept to understand.
>>
Read the abstract here:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
>>
>>7633581
Ah, the great magical heating ocean. Exactly how did you instrument all those billions of cubic kilometers of water? Oh wait, you didn't. And why did you put the graph in Joules? Oh yeah, because the temperatures changes are on the order of hundredths of a degree much less than the standard error of the measurements! Where are your error bars? And how did you account for all the currents and flows and other inhomogeneities in the oceans?

And why did the heat from the greenhouse effect suddenly decide to sneak down through the atmosphere into the ocean in 1998 (when satellite temperatures of the troposphere flat-lined)? Explain, with specificity, the mechanism that made this happen. And explain why that specific physical mechanism occurred in 1998.

And why does it matter that the ocean allegedly warmed by approximately 0.03 degrees increase plus or minus 0.10 degrees? Let me guess, you think all that heat can suddenly sneak back out of the ocean, into the atmosphere and kill us all, right? You need a class in thermodynamics.
>>
>>7629588
>these fucking delusional retards thinking there is an alternative to oil
>As if they don't hate nuclear too

I do?
>>
>>7635689
>helps plants grow
"quality of the food produced by the plant
decreases, so you’ve got to eat more of it"
No problem for 'Murifats
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm
>>
>>7635806
>we can measure the difference between temperatures measured with the old tools and the new tools and derive the relative error of the old tools.

Sheesh, you're just making it up. Do you realize how incredibly unscientific you sound? Let's guess the "error" of such and such a site at such and such a time and then make a correction. Corrections that are on the same order of magnitude as the entire warming effect! Why do all of the "corrections" just happen to increase the rate of warming. The probability of that happening from genuine error corrections is almost exactly zero.

At the very least, those graphs should have the error bars which illustrate the guess-work of the "corrections." BTW, despite your silly explanations, the real reason the rate of warming goes up after each correction is the deeply flawed "homogenization" algorithm. If a temperature is deemed "out of synch" with its neighbor stations, it will be "corrected" to be similar to its neighboring stations.

This is a terrible algorithm. In the far past, most temperature stations were rural, so this correction for the most part subtracted off the UHI, amongst other things. So far, so good. However, now, many rural stations have been dropped out, and many more stations are now urban. So the "correction" of an out-of-synch temperature reading generally adds the UHI to that temperature stations. The net result is that old temperature readings are corrected downward (roughly correctly) but newer stations are incorrectly corrected upwards. This increases the rate of warming and it is why every newly corrected temperature time series has a higher rate of warming.
>>
>>7633581
>>Kek, doesn't look at satellite temps
>Satellite temps have a bunch of issues,`but they still show clear surface warming.
> Satellite temp readings prevent us from tampering with the data until we get the desired result.
FTFY


>Um?
>Just checking, but you do know that the zero on those graphs is arbitrary, right?
Are you really this dense? Do you really think they arbitrarily re-normalize temperature deviations every time a new graph is made? Why? To confuse their intended audience?
>>
Why isn't this /pol/ anti-science bullshit banned here?
>>
>>7635949
becoz freedumb of screech
>>
>>7635283
parts per million. are you the type who freaks the fuck out over seeing 1ppm of fluoride in your water buddy?

time to troll climate "scientists".

If every single piece of ice in the arctic ocean melted tomorrow, would Florida be underwater?

If all the sea ice in the antarctic melted as well, but ice on the land is increasing (as in this study) tell me what would happen to global sea levels?

if you cant do this, get out

hint: tell me if your drink increases in volume as the ice melts.
>>
>>7628505
If greenhouse gases trap in heat from the sun, wouldn't they also reflect heat? Wouldn't this equal out to 0?
>>
>>7635996
building off my point.....you guys do know how tiny 0.27 mm/yr is right? like 0.27 mm....is about 3 pieces of paper thick. thats right. that is what you are all going off about. get back to me in 10billion years when that amounts to something.

and to further kill this "climate change", turns out that the satellite they were using to declare ice as less reflective due to smog/soot was actually invalid because the fucking satellite itself had shit building up on its lens. look it up, the latest in climate science failure coming out of the woodwork this week.

god damn am i glad to be in a real science field and not this shit show. funny watching all these fakes freezing their ass off in antarctica and greenland though trying to find some ice core that will prove their point while throwing away 99% of them. guess you gotta do what you gotta do to keep the grant money coming in
>>
>>7635850
Oh, it's a simplistic explanation I gave you, for sure. In the past, when I've given more in-depth explanations to deniers, they've been unable to understand it. If I'm having to dumb things down for you...well, all it means is that one of us is a nitwit.
>Why do all of the "corrections" just happen to increase the rate of warming.
They don't; I went over this in >>7635043
>The probability of that happening from genuine error corrections is almost exactly zero.
That's only true if you assume that the errors are randomly distributed, and not the result of some actual effect resulting from methodological limitations.
>the real reason the rate of warming goes up after each correction is the deeply flawed "homogenization" algorithm. If a temperature is deemed "out of synch" with its neighbor stations, it will be "corrected" to be similar to its neighboring stations.
please explain how homogenization by this method could cause a warming trend to emerge from data that show temperatures holding constant. protip: it can't. and you accuse me of making shit up...
>In the far past, most temperature stations were rural, so this correction for the most part subtracted off the UHI, amongst other things. So far, so good. However, now, many rural stations have been dropped out, and many more stations are now urban.
>2015
>not knowing about remote sensors and more reliable transmitters allowing for better placement of weather stations in recent years
if you aren't aware of what technology is even used, you really shouldn't be weighing in on tech limitations of the methodology.

>>7635996
>land ice in antarctica increasing in the short term
>clearly means that land ice on the planet is increasing in the long term!
hokay stop

>>7636015
off by roughly an order of magnitude on sea level rise
and if you think that failing sensors on a satellite magically disprove climate change, boy are you in for a shock.
real science field? what are you studying, econ?
>>
>>7635996
Sea water is salted water, while the water which composes the Antartica ice isn't. They have different densities, so your analogy doesn't work.

Iirc if you account for the difference in densities the melting of non-salted water in salted water actually increases the level.
>>
>>7635827
>Exactly how did you instrument all those billions of cubic kilometers of water?
>Where are your error bars?
>And how did you account for all the currents and flows and other inhomogeneities in the oceans?
Why don't you read the paper and find out for yourself?

>And why did the heat from the greenhouse effect suddenly decide to sneak down through the atmosphere into the ocean in 1998
What? There's very little deviation from the trend in 1998.

>And why does it matter that the ocean allegedly warmed by approximately 0.03 degrees increase plus or minus 0.10 degrees?
Because it's kinda a major part of the planet?

>Let me guess, you think all that heat can suddenly sneak back out of the ocean, into the atmosphere and kill us all, right?
I can't tell if you're trolling or what.
Anyway, heat DOES move into and out of the oceans, but the oceans affect surface climate in a bunch of other ways too.

>>7635883
>Satellite temp readings prevent us from tampering with the data until we get the desired result.
>FTFY
Cute conspiracy theory.

>Are you really this dense? Do you really think they arbitrarily re-normalize temperature deviations every time a new graph is made? Why? To confuse their intended audience?
Yes, because the people writing papers have nothing better to do than troll people who try and make GIFs out of several different papers.
Jesus Fucking Christ, the zero on those graphs means nothing; people are only interested in the difference between points.

>>7635996
>hint: tell me if your drink increases in volume as the ice melts.
You're arguing about the global hoydroloical system by analogy with a glass of water. Just stop.
Also, the majority of all ice on earth is on land, not floating.

>>7636011
Nope. Energy comes in as visible light, but it leaves as infrared. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but opaque in infrared.
>>
>>7635850
>Sheesh, you're just making it up. Do you realize how incredibly unscientific you sound?
Measuring things and then using those mesurments to understand a system is unscientific now?

>Let's guess the "error" of such and such a site at such and such a time and then make a correction.
We don't need to guess, we can measure the error given be a particular tool.

>Why do all of the "corrections" just happen to increase the rate of warming. The probability of that happening from genuine error corrections is almost exactly zero.
Doesn't it bother you think that everything you disagree with is proof of a conspiracy?

>If a temperature is deemed "out of synch" with its neighbor stations, it will be "corrected" to be similar to its neighboring stations.
OH GOD HOW TERRIBLE

>So the "correction" of an out-of-synch temperature reading generally adds the UHI to that temperature stations.
Like you've been told a dozen times, the UHI effect isn't some magical fucking pixie known only to Andrew Watts and his disciples.
It's easy to measure, and every dataset already corrects for it.

>The net result is that old temperature readings are corrected downward (roughly correctly) but newer stations are incorrectly corrected upwards.
If you think we don't correct for the UHI properly, then write a fucking paper about it. Don't just bitch on message boards if you think you have knowledge vital to modern science.

>>7636015
>god damn am i glad to be in a real science field and not this shit show. funny watching all these fakes freezing their ass off in antarctica and greenland though trying to find some ice core that will prove their point while throwing away 99% of them. guess you gotta do what you gotta do to keep the grant money coming in
I highly doubt you do any kind of research as a living.
>>
>global warming deniers in a nutshell
>>
>>7632394
>last 17 years show a cooling trend
>>7633006
>17 years was declared by climate scientist to be the amount of time needed to test the theory
>>7633259
>falsifiability criterion for AGW

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

The brazen lack of a falsifiability criterion clearly demonstrates how AGW/CC has become politicized to the point of pseudoscience.

This does not imply no significant degree of AGW has or will occur. It means we do not know, as we do not understand climate processes well enough to formulate meaningful models capable of meaningful predictions, at this time.

It does however imply acting on current models and fearmongering to be irresponsible and premature.
>>
>>7635996
>parts per million
You realize that the graph shows an increase from 320 to 400, right? That is an increase of 25%. That's what is important.
>>
>>7636359
>has become politicized to the point of pseudoscience

>spoken by /pol/
>on /sci/

Really?

Also, how is this thread still around?
>>
>>7636583
>/pol/
It is ironic how obsessive-compulsive /pol/ callers like yourself shit up /sci/ worse than /pol/ ever has.

You are constantly disrupting legitimate discourse with incessant bait tactics and personal attacks that have no place in science. This thread is a prime example. Your disingenous accusation is not even true. Now please go back to /b/ where you belong, I am done talking with you.
>>
>>7636685
Oh. Did I touch a nerve?

Maybe you should gb2pol until you've been back on your meds long enough to have the requisite stability required to engage in science without appealing to conspiracy theory and being triggered every time someone mentions your home board?

That's not too difficult is it?
>>
>>7635775
So you are going to completely avoid the point that your only source for the "no trend" is pseudoscience by making a random list of climatologists? It's not that hard to make logical arguments if you try.
>>
This thread is proof that climate change deniers never read more than the headline.
>>
climate will change whether there are humans in the picture or not.

the current population of humans need hyrdocarbons to survive. need. one more time need.

climate change is now sadly a purely political and economic tool to keep you poor and/or spending money.

anything that moves will change the environment irreversibly.

humans build shit that's what we do.

reducing carbon output by 20% vs a growing population is fallacy.

staring at graphs and charts and ranting about the sky falling doesn't fix the problem.

Most climate change drama queens are lost on what is the objective of their argument. that is, what or where should the environment be otherwise if climate change is a problem?

this is not a /sci/ thread
>>
>>7631689

>gains are already in terms of per year
>divides by the number of years

>youdensemotherfucker.jpg
>>
>>7636741
>climate change deniers never read more than the headline.
Yeah, every time I mention the 18 years they refuse to look at the graph and just go full reality denial modes, posting headlines from the Daily Mail about our impending doom.
>>
>>7636892
>climate change is now sadly a purely political and economic tool to keep you poor and/or spending money.
I keep hearing this but what are the numbers? How effective has this tool actually been? I thought the problem with climate change was that it was hard to capitalize on.
>>
>>7636991
From what I've heard we don't really know. Some people are going to lose a lot of money, but there are also a bunch of new industries that are going to show up.
>>
Even if climate change isn't real, isn't it in our best collective interests to transition as best we can away from the ever-volatile nature of fossil fuels, and in general stop polluting less?
>>
File: newtamperd1.png (102KB, 473x347px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
newtamperd1.png
102KB, 473x347px
>>7636115
>please explain how homogenization by this method could cause a warming trend to emerge from data that show temperatures holding constant. protip: it can't. and you accuse me of making shit up...
I already explained it. >>7635850 Not sure if you didn't understand it, or you're pretending not to. So I'll give specific examples.

Right here, homogenization in action. Clean data from Class 1 temperature stations; stations that fit all NOAA requirements.
Non-homogenized temps on the left, homogenized on the right. (check the values on the vertical axis, they are sometimes different). Notice how the temp data on the right has an increase rate of warming.

>nb4 hurr durr, tampering clean data is part of the scientific method.
You climate bedwetters are the ultimate science deniers.


>
>>
>>7636115
More tampering of clean data AKA "homogenization" inducing an increase rate of warming.

>the scientific method includes correcting clean data!
whatever
>>
File: newtamperd3.png (76KB, 405x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
newtamperd3.png
76KB, 405x300px
>>7636115
More homogenized clean data.
More induced warming rate.
>>
File: newtampered2.png (43KB, 412x168px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
newtampered2.png
43KB, 412x168px
>>7638468
Attachment here.
>>
>>7638462
>>7638471
>>7638473
>Notice how the temp data on the right has an increase rate of warming.
It doesn't though? The trend looks basically identical left to right.

Also, you haven't established how any of this is evidence of fraud.
>>
the rise in sea levels measured is because of continental drift. so its not a real increase in sea level its that the land is moving
>>
>>7637302
And yet the same people involved are vehemently opposed to the only real alternative
aka
nuclear power.
There is broad conspiracies & agendas going on here.
>>
>>7638512

>It doesn't though? The trend looks basically identical left to right
yes. rate of warming goes up. look closer. look at changes in specific data points.
>nb4 hurr, durr, I see nothing troll...
Don't waste my time.

>Also, you haven't established how any of this is evidence of fraud.
altering clean data to add a warming trend is bad methodology at best. it could be fraudulent.

The fact that you ask such a naive question suggests that you have little scientific background.
>>
>>7636243

>>>7635996

>Also, the majority of all ice on earth is on land, not floating.

Yes but he was talking about sea ice, not ice on land. I was going to make this point but had to reread his post.

>>7636170

Makes the point it would still rise because of density differences in the ice. But I think he might of misread the post also.
>>
>According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

The second derivative is negative, climate change confirmed.
>>
File: 1431243601454.jpg (51KB, 590x826px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1431243601454.jpg
51KB, 590x826px
>>7636892

>climate will change whether there are humans in the picture or not.

Yeah, and? Whether that's the case or not doesn't change the fact that reducing our destructive habits is still a good idea.

>the current population of humans need hyrdocarbons to survive. need. one more time need.

If we were able to survive without industrial pollution before the industrial era, I think we'll survive this reduction we're trying for.

>climate change is now sadly a purely political and economic tool to keep you poor and/or spending money.

That's an opinion.

>anything that moves will change the environment irreversibly.

Is this suppose to be insightful or something? I don't understand the point your making.

This is like saying "posting in this thread will change the world." Of course it will, but there are good changes and bad changes. Where do you think changing the climate would be on the "change" scale?

>reducing carbon output by 20% vs a growing population is fallacy.

What is energy efficiency?

If you have a population of 100 people using 10kw/h. Now introduce another 24 people but now they have a more efficient power generator and use 8kw/h.

See how that line of thinking is ridiculous? It is very possible to reduce your carbon output.

>staring at graphs and charts and ranting about the sky falling doesn't fix the problem.

When the fucking sky is falling it does! That's the point.

>Most climate change drama queens are lost on what is the objective of their argument. that is, what or where should the environment be otherwise if climate change is a problem?

There isn't an argument though, just data collected. That is where the hypothesis of climate change came from. Have you ever followed the scientific method?

You claim to be of a scientific background and yet you don't know how science works?

>this is not a /sci/ thread

When people like you are here I agree. I'm not even very /sci/, but seriously my man, get help.
>>
File: Gordon Freeman.gif (521KB, 386x217px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Gordon Freeman.gif
521KB, 386x217px
>>7638462
>>7638471
>>7638473
>I already explained it.
No, you most certainly did not. All you said was that the perceived warming trend is caused by homogenization, and you explained what homogenization means in this context. I fucking DEFY you to demonstrate how homogenization can turn a neutral trend into a warming trend.
All your given examples show is homogenization turning a warming trend into the same warming trend with a very slightly different shape. And if anything, I'd say the trend actually looks slightly WEAKER in the homogenized data.

just really not sure what you thought you were going to demonstrate with those graphs...
also, did you know that Google Reverse Image Search is a thing these days? it is because of that that I know your images were taken DIRECTLY FROM Watt's Up With That. Nice sorry excuse for a source, m88. Oh those crazy deniers; they can't science and they can't internet.
>>
>>7638869
>turn a non-existent neutral trend into an actual warming trend
Lrn2trend
>>
>>7638886
All of the graphs you posted show an increasing trend and that homogenization actually lowered the trend. Good job, retard.
>>
>>7638568
>look closer. look at changes in specific data points.
I have. I see shit all difference in the trend.

>altering clean data to add a warming trend is bad methodology at best. it could be fraudulent.
It's fraudulent because you don't the result? Seriously?

>The fact that you ask such a naive question suggests that you have little scientific background.
You can't just assert that something is a conspiracy, and then call everyone who asks for proof naive.
>>
File: Titanic.jpg (53KB, 587x590px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Titanic.jpg
53KB, 587x590px
>>7629944
This
>>
>>7638462
>>7638471
>>7638473
>>7638886
I read the LOLWUWT post that you pulled those pictures from, and I've come to the conclusion that this Rud Istvan guy doesn't know how to read a graph.

>You climate bedwetters are the ultimate science deniers.
>bedwetters
Say, are you Nutbar back for more punishment? Remember that time you posted a graph that actually had a citation? And the graph data weren't in the cited document? And some guy spotted that and you got BTFO in front of everyone?
>>
File: Comrade Shut up!.png (132KB, 305x418px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Comrade Shut up!.png
132KB, 305x418px
>>7638869
>hurr durr, I'll resort to ad hominem. Since the graphs of temps data are on Wattsupwiththat.com, that instantly falsifies the data.
> You're like my fundamentalist father who said that anyone who left the Church was an apostate so whatever they said was lies.
Your denial is astonishing. Confronted with specific proof via data, you whine, "Graphs were posted on evil denier website!"

Here's a nice analysis of the results of homogenization and its changes to the warming (or cooling) rate. Note that these are all first class stations; mean their data is pristine. Notice how a tiny 0.18 C/Century trend is changed into a 0.76 trend. That's man made climate change!

FIRST CLASS US STATIONS
History 1874 to 2014
Stations 23
Dataset Unadjusted Adjusted
Average Trend 0.18 0.76 °C/Century
Std. Deviation 0.66 0.54 °C/Century
Max Trend 1.18 1.91 °C/Century
Min Trend -2.00 -0.48 °C/Century
Ave. Length 119 Years

>Trigger warning, this careful statistical analysis is at an evil denier website.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/
>>
>>7640805
>"Graphs were posted on evil denier website!"
I don't know if the other person will say this, but I will. If WUWT claimed the sky was blue, I'd go out and check.

>Confronted with specific proof via data,
As a bunch of people have already told you, those graphs aren't proof - there's shit all change in the trend in any of them.

>temperature-data-review-project-my-submission
Oh boy.
First up, why the hell should I give a shit about someone's blog?
Secondly, I think you missed the part where it's only talking about US stations. I know Americans stereotypically forget it, but the rest of the planet matters too.
>>
>>7640805
If you actually read my post, you'd get what I (and a couple other people) have been saying:

YOUR DATA DON'T SHOW ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO.

You posted graphs and claimed that the adjusted data showed warming trends while the unadjusted data did not. Several people here, myself included, pointed out that both adjusted and unadjusted data had practically the same trends, and that in some cases the warming was stronger in the unadjusted data.


You posted images from a denier blog in support of your thoroughly meritless claims. In so doing, you made the same exact mistake that Mr. Rud Istvan did. What can I say? It just looks an awful lot like you're not making an effort to think arguments through, and are just parroting what others say so long as it fits with your opinions.
Man, you're pathetic. Do you honestly look at those graphs and think that the adjusted ones have a greater positive slope than the unadjusted ones?
>>
>>7641254
>>7640901
So a warming trend of 0.18 C/century is no different from a warming trend of 0.76 C/century?
>hurr durr evil denier, therefore false.
You've been utterly reduced to ad hominem. Typical of a science denier.

>Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who... is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
>>
>>7640901
>If WUWT claimed the sky was blue, I'd go out and check.

And if the IPCC claim the sky is green you'd revise your memory and claim "Of course the sky is green, we knew that all along!" because you're so desperately willing to be a submissive lapdog to political institutions and will rather be slave to ideology than face a hard truth.
>>
People in developed nations are not willing to sacrifice quality of life over AGW.

People in developing nations aka China and the like want to match said developed nations quality of live, thus not willing to make sacrifices over AGW.

Most people simply do not care.
>>
>>7641692
I live in a temperate zone. Warmer climate would just boost agriculture and give us better summers.

Sea level rise? Irrelevant. Anyone with beachfront property here have built with marginals because the local sea level is variable due to wind and waves already.

>But elsewhere!
Don't give a shit about elsewhere, if they have shit tier infrastructure or dislike warm weather they can go fuck themselves, the are less valuable than cheap and reliable energy.
>>
>>7641667
>So a warming trend of 0.18 C/century is no different from a warming trend of 0.76 C/century?
None of the graphs posted show a change in trend like that. This is becoming repetitive.

>>7641677
>And if the IPCC claim the sky is green you'd revise your memory and claim "Of course the sky is green, we knew that all along!" because you're so desperately willing to be a submissive lapdog to political institutions and will rather be slave to ideology than face a hard truth.
Are you done coming up with fantasies about me, or do you want to be left a little longer?

>>7641692
Yup. It's the tragedy of the commons applied to an entire planet.
>>
>>7641714
>tragedy of the commons
It's a benefit of the commons, enough people wants the benefits so the bleeding heart alarmist is ignored, progress rolls on and the idiotic objections never materialize and are lost under the threads of history.

Everything will at some point or other have a vocal minority throwing shitfits over how "it's a danger to morals"/"it's against the will of god"/"it's unnatural"/"it's unknown so surely it's dangerous"/"it's known to be safe but I want to be afraid so certainly it's dangerous!"

Media loves these alarmists because doom and gloom sells, so even a tiny hysteric minority are given plenty of voice.

No it's not different this time. It's the same cyclic bullshit.
>>
>>7641714
>None of the graphs posted show a change in trend like that.
See >>7640805
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

Not him, so can't answer for the graphs he posted and their lack of plotted trend lines.
>>
>>7641732
>Wordpress.com

Dropped.
>>
>>7641756
You can replicate Clutz's findings yourself, the data sets are available here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
>>
>>7641781
>noaa.gov
As if that's more reliable than wordpress.
>>
>>7641727
>Media loves these alarmists because doom and gloom sells, so even a tiny hysteric minority are given plenty of voice.
>No it's not different this time. It's the same cyclic bullshit.
You heard a boy cry wolf once, so you're going to ignore every warning you ever receive regardless of where it comes from? That doesn't sound like a terribly clever plan.
>>
>>7641667
>You've been utterly reduced to ad hominem.
And here's what I said:
>YOUR DATA DON'T SHOW ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO.
Do you even know what argumentum ad hominem means? It means attacking someone's character rather than their argument. It's rather transparently false to claim that that's all I'm doing when any fool with a scroll wheel can look at what I actually wrote.

And argumentum ad hominem is PERFECTLY VALID when the nature of the attack is to demonstrate that the source is biased or otherwise unreliable. Pointing out that a man claiming alien abduction is a drug user is an ad hominem attack, but his drug habit is absolutely relevant to the reliability of his claims.
You, ignorant of these subtleties, have continued to accuse me of argumentum ad hominem in a pathetic attempt to distract from the fact that the graphs you've been using to support your claims don't actually do so. Nice try.
>>
File: Geometry dog.gif (2MB, 370x319px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Geometry dog.gif
2MB, 370x319px
>>7640805
>>7641667
>>7641732
>>7641781
Here's the problem with his little analysis: he COMPLETELY ignores the methodology underlying the adjustments. His approach assumes that the adjustments were made specifically to fabricate a warming trend and doesn't even bother investigating the reasons for the adjustments.
And here's the other, much bigger, problem: he uses only 23 sites and ignores all the others. Sure, the thousands of other sites may have slightly suboptimal placement, but of those 6000+ temperature stations, only 536 were even rated by the SurfaceStations project, and even for the less-than-perfect ones, we can measure and correct for those errors. Rather than do so, Mr. Clutz has opted to throw the entire dataset out the window. He's pared a set of over 1600 records of at least 100 years down to 23, and yet he claims that HE has a more statistically rigorous approach. The methodology tells you all you need to know.

Still think Ron Clutz is a good statistician? Read this and you'll change your mind.
>https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/epidemic-of-denial/
>>
>>7642038
>> Hurr durr 23 clean stations (the entire class 1 set!), so what if tampered.
>> Hurr durr ad hominem

Besides the usual snide, subservience to Climastrology dogma, the Tamino website has nothing to do with the temperature data analysis.

You have failed. Go back to you mommies basement. I should be astonished by the level of science denial here. The relentless ad hominem and denial is painfully demonstrative of a secular religion.
>>
File: Latest Tampering.gif (173KB, 657x594px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Latest Tampering.gif
173KB, 657x594px
>>7642038
There is no justification for the adjustments. By the NOAA's own regulations, the data is clean. Period, end of story. And it was even examined for outliers and jumps; none there.

Your denial is pathetic. Why do they keep "adjusting" the same data more and more? Pic related. This is indefensible except by your authoritarian predilections.

Tampered data + Failed predictions = Pseudo-science.
>>
>>7642153
>There is no justification for the adjustments. By the NOAA's own regulations, the data is clean.
The only criterion Clutz's stations were judged on is urban heat island effect. So this has nothing to do with NOAA regulations or clean data. All you've done is say "the only possible error is warming error, and if we only correct for warming error, we get colder temperatures." What a fucking surprise. You'd have to be delusional to accept this as a logical argument.
>>
>>7641875
>so you're going to ignore every warning you ever receive regardless of where it comes from?

No. I'm actually going to spend some time digging through the details before deciding if I should dismiss it or not.

Media X reporting about Y saying Z is 100% useless data on its own.

Because media X will always be a clueless layman, it doesn't matter if it's a news anchor at CNN/BBC/Whatever reporting about the dangerous cholesterol levels in eggs(that are no longer as dangerous today because oops, cholesterol metabolism is not as straightforward as alarmist Y said once) or if it's Alex Jones reporting from crackpot central about the danger of vaccines. They are both completely clueless laymen and report because the news value and the news value only, just assume that X is willfully lying to sell a good story every time.

The "Y saying Z" part? Well, that can be directly false. "Y saying Z" is a media paraphrasing. Until you actually dig into what Y produced you won't actually know if Z is ever said or just a misinterpretation. If Y is saying Z to X but doesn't actually show Z in their work, then that's a big fucking warning flag. Done? lets accept Z? Well no. much work left.

Once that Y actually saying Z is established you need to consider the mission of Y and their standing and potential gain from peddling Z. If you can guess Z based on what Y is you need to be critical and really take a long look at Z, but because Y almost never only produce a single Z, look at their previous ones. Do you see a pattern that fits Y predicts Z? Do you see Z claiming futures that never happened, is Z relaible or can Y be compromised, any data to support this? Lots of things to consider.

....
>>
>>7642229
continuation....


The AGW party makes this too easy because they trigger every fucking warning flag. They say things to media in a phrasing unsupported by their findings. The IPCCs obvious Z solution is pro-AGW, they have numerous failed predictions that are sequentially modified in a damage mitigation manner and the people behind it are shown to lack all integrity thanks to their numerous leaked emails and other proof of underhanded conduct.
>>
>>7642183
So where do this gigantic cooling error we need to correct for come from?

Also why are we adding a warming correction to the reference network stations?
>>
>>7642257
>So where do this gigantic cooling error we need to correct for come from?
Time of observation changes (which primarily affect the rural stations Watt's classified as #1), instrument changes, and station relocations. You should already know this if you understand anything about homogenization. Since you apparently don't, you should read this

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

>Also why are we adding a warming correction to the reference network stations?
See above.

Again, the argument you are presenting is trying to say that homogenization doesn't work while purposely ignoring most of what homogenization does. This is a completely invalid conclusion.
>>
>>7642284
Nothing you said justifies cooling adjustments.

>what homogenization does
It biases the entire dataset accordingly to your homogenization standards. It's not an intelligent process at all.

If I have 4 stations

3 are subject to extreme UHI, 1 is a rural station.
After Homogenization I have 4 graphs with extreme UHI traits. I just destroyed my only accurate dataset. And you're defending this practice?
>>
File: USCRN.png (16KB, 1005x551px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
USCRN.png
16KB, 1005x551px
>Build expensive reference network of high quality temperature stations
>Never use the data because it disagrees with your ideology.

Best part of climate science is when people are so delusional they build their own undoing.
>>
>>7642428
who needs data when we have models :)
>>
>>7642138
The whole point is that nothing Mr. Clutz wrote is any sort of evidence of tampering. He straight up ASSUMES deliberate fabrication of evidence without at any point addressing the methodology. Nor are the 23 studied "the entire class 1 set". They are the class 1 set only of the subset of ~500 stations surveyed by Surface Stations (a group founded and run by unabashed denier Anthony Watt) out of the total of ~6000 temperature stations.
So, a group founded and run by a clearly biased individual picks 8% of the total to survey, and they give optimal designation to 5% of their selected pool. And you think that the corrections applied to those selected stations are more trustworthy and meaningful than anything else on the topic? You're stretching the bounds of credulity here.

The Tamino link serves only to cast doubt on Mr. Clutz's reliability by demonstrating that he cherry-picks data and engages in dishonest statistical manipulations. You're going to awfully great lengths to defend a guy who clearly doesn't know what he's doing.

>>7642153
>There is no justification for the adjustments.
I think what you mean is that nobody's identified a specific source of error that needs to be adjusted for. Hey, when one data set drastically diverges from the rest, it's a pretty safe bet that there's something going on with it. Just because nobody was able to quantify where the anomaly came from doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Typical denier attitude. When the uncorrected data go against their beliefs, they complain that the data need to be adjusted. When the corrected data go against their beliefs, they accuse climatologists of doctoring the evidence. One way or the other, guys.

>>7642428
>10 years of data for one country
totally enough to say that the entire planet hasn't been warming over the past century, amirite? also, nice graph taken directly from WUWT. are you capable of actually posting properly sourced material from a primary source?
>>
File: Yikes scale.jpg (38KB, 540x288px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Yikes scale.jpg
38KB, 540x288px
>>7642412
>Nothing you said justifies cooling adjustments.
Except for
>Time of observation changes...instrument changes, and station relocations
English motherfucker, do you read it?

>[homogenization] biases the entire dataset accordingly to your homogenization standards.
Is that what they call "removing outliers" these days?

>3 are subject to extreme UHI, 1 is a rural station.
>After Homogenization I have 4 graphs with extreme UHI traits. I just destroyed my only accurate dataset. And you're defending this practice?
implying that climatologists don't correct for UHI effects
>after I explained that they actually do about ten times
>it's like you stubbornly believe that climatologists are unable to measure, account for, and correct for sampling artifacts
I shiggy diggy doo dah
>>
>>7642611
>climatologists don't correct for UHI effects
They don't.
No really. they don't. The corrections amplify UHI becuase that gives a very alarmist appearance of graphs.
Seriously. yes. they actuaylly amplify UHI.
It sounds like a joke but it's seriously what they do.
>>
>>7642701
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1993)032%3C0899%3ATUONAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3431.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C2941:AOUVRI%3E2.0.CO;2

actually try a little next time
0/10 commit sudoku
>>
>>7642772
Posting UHI studies doesnt' change the fact that it's amplified in the adjustments.
>>
>>7642841
>all these studies talk about ways of adjusting for UHI effects?
>nah, they're lying. I know for a fact that they're just going around making the measurements even worse
>sources and citations? all the proof anyone needs is in these graphs that I don't even know how to read
you keep saying this stuff, but you don't have any facts to back it up. but keep it up; I'm sure eventually you'll say it enough times that it'll be true.
>>
>>7642841
If UHI was amplified in the data then comparing rural stations and urban stations should show a significantly different trend. But when you look at them separately they show the same trend. That's what those papers show. So the argument that urban stations are affecting rural stations is nonsense. They both show the temp warming. Hell even the graphs you posted show that.
>>
File: TCHP.gif (1MB, 800x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
TCHP.gif
1MB, 800x600px
/sci/, please never have a climatology related thread again. Holy shit, so disappointing. I recommend actually reading the articles in the AMS Journal of Climate, and not a shitty wordpress blog.
>>
>>7642934
>climatology related thread
>so disappointing
there are two kinds of climatology threads on /sci/:
1. Someone asks what the deal is with global warming/climate change, how we know what's going on, and what resources are good for learning more. A few people comment with summaries and introductory references, and the thread lasts maybe fifty posts.
2. A /pol/esmoker or two drop by with the latest bit of trivia that they are convinced proves climate change is a hoax. They rant loudly about it, insisting that anyone who points out flaws in their reasoning is a bedwetting conspirator, and proclaim that they alone are true scientists. A couple of people with backgrounds in earth/climate science argue the point just to show that deniers don't actually have a case, and the thread drags on until it hits the autosage.

Guess which one is more common. :|
>>
>>7642611
>>Time of observation changes...instrument changes, and station relocations
None of the problems occur in the NOAA Class 1 stations. That why there's so few of them amongst the 1000's of temp stations.

That's the whole point, they're clean data points which allow for testing to see if the "adjustment/homogenization" algorithms are legitimate or BS. The verdict is out
>>7640805
They're B.S.

And now the fraud is being investigated:
http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2015/11/lawmaker-claims-noaa-altered-climate-change-data-issues-rare-subpoena-internal-research-docs/123449/

This is probably why NASA published an honest paper about Antarctic mass growing. Someone realized that they are on the edge of investigations for fraud. So they're covering their tail.
>>
>>7642605
>They are the class 1 set only of the subset of ~500 stations surveyed by Surface Stations (a group founded and run by unabashed denier Anthony Watt) out of the total of ~6000 temperature stations.
>So, a group founded and run by a clearly biased individual picks 8% of the total to survey, and they give optimal designation to 5% of their selected pool.

>Evil denier identifies the small subset of data stations with clean data.
Translation: no bias, no need for Time of reading adjustments, change of instrumentation adjustments etc. That's why there's so few of them.
> Clean data shows massive bias after "adjustments"

Doesn't count because Evil Denier.

How do you science deniers sleep at night?
>>
>>7642849
Because in the recent past, when the UHI is the strongest, they are INCREASING the temperature values, not lowering them. That's the antithesis of a UHI adjustment.

> hurr durr, there's a magical other adjustment.
Don't event bother.
>>
>>7642883
Silly, those paper look at the homogenized rural stations which have the UHI spread to them. The raw data has a significantly lower warming rate than the urban data. Considering that the raw data includes urban data, the actual warming rate is even lower.

See pic:>>7633496

Honestly, i can't stop being amazed at the incredible gullibility of warmists. "After spreading the UHI to rural data, its warming rate is the same as urban data. Therefore the UHI is weak!"

I've got a bridge to Brooklyn I'll sell you, real cheap.
>>
>>7643130
How is an email fishing expedition evidence of anything?
>>
>>7628505
I am reminded of my own frailty thinking about our planet. It is amazing to me that this sphere is in such a perfect placement in the solar system to have juuuust the poles frozen. We are SO close to being covered with ice, its feels like what one would call a miracle.

My point is, I believe other people feel this way. Rightfully so, but then human nature takes ahold and where theres a fear theres a way... and people use our unimaginable placement in the universe as a means to control people. Fucking hell, evolutionarily we need to change this trait somehow or we're not going to last very long.
>>
>>7642284
Sorry to confuse you with actual data, but the Time of Observation Bias has been examined. Here's is a graph of USHCN data with the stations eliminated that did an afternoon reading in 1936. What happens?

0.3 degrees C temp increase since 1895. Almost negligible. A much lower warming rate than in official NOAA graphs. Once again, warmists BTFO.
>>
File: TOB Test Data.gif (22KB, 664x541px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
TOB Test Data.gif
22KB, 664x541px
>>7643179
Here's the pic
>>
>>7643130
>None of the problems occur in the NOAA Class 1 stations. That why there's so few of them amongst the 1000's of temp stations.
One, that's factually incorrect. Time of observation varies widely (though it has been mostly standardized in recent decades), and that can easily skew your measurements by a full degree C. Instrument changes are inevitable as technology improves. Station relocation may or may not be an issue with the 23 chosen (I haven't looked up their individual histories), but the point stands.
Two, those 23 aren't all the CRN1 stations. Only ~550 out of >6000 temperature stations were actually surveyed by Surface Stations.

>And now the fraud is being investigated:
read as: Republican congressman goes on witch hunt based in a faulty understanding of the science. Planned Parenthood is being investigated too, and on about the same level of grounds.

>>7643138
as above, nothing in the criteria for CRN1 excludes those issues, and the fact that surveying 8% of the stations is being passed off as a comprehensive study is quite a problem for you too. go ahead, keep repeating the same old lies if it makes you feel better.

>>7643152
you mean the recent past, when remote sensors allow for weather stations to be kept further away from possible sources of influence? you're so stuck harping on one forcing that you think backs you up that you forget to consider other variables. also,
>citation needed
>le unlabeled denier graph

>>7643163
>Silly, those paper look at the homogenized rural stations which have the UHI spread to them.
this is simply 100% made up. I guess it's easy to ignore inconvenient evidence contradicting your opinions if you just pretend that they did something other than they did
>>
>>7643173
>We are SO close to being covered with ice, its feels like what one would call a miracle.
Not really. We're well inside the orbial radius where water stays frozen, and the ice cover % varies with time anyway.

>and people use our unimaginable placement in the universe as a means to control people.
What on Earth are you on about?

>>7643163
I'm having trouble reading what you're trying to say.
>Silly, those paper look at the homogenized rural stations which have the UHI spread to them.
The UHI gets removed.

>The raw data has a significantly lower warming rate than the urban data. Considering that the raw data includes urban data, the actual warming rate is even lower.
Right, and that's the UHI effect. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

>>7643179
>>7643182
"0.3 degrees C temp increase since 1895" sounds pretty low. Where did you get that data from?
Oh, and nice graph from some random Wordpress blog.
>>
>>7643179
>>7643182
you do realize, that graph doesn't cite any sources? that wouldn't be a problem except that the denier blog it's pulled from (RealClimateScience) doesn't cite any sources either.
are you guys all just allergic to actual data or something? do you think everyone's as easily convinced by unlabeled graphs as you are?
>>
>>7628582
>attacking feminism
Get bent. Go back to /pol/ or the slymepit.

PS: All credibility you had should be lost.
>>
>>7633317
This tbqh
>>
>>7643179
>>7643182
>0.3 degrees C temp increase since 1895. Almost negligible. A much lower warming rate than in official NOAA graphs.
LOL, that's more than half of all the adjustments to USHCN data. So on the one you are arguing that the adjustments themselves are creating a warming trend where none exists, and now you are arguing that they are negligible additions to the warming rate. Which is it?

Yes, the adjustments are pretty negligible towards the warming rate which you can see pretty much regardless of how you look at the data. Thank for admitting the U.S. is warming.
>>
>>7643307
>Thank for admitting the U.S. is warming.
Excuse me? Sorry for butting in, but the US has been cooling for the last couple of decades. The USCRN data set too confirms the current cooling trend. Claiming otherwise is just not true.
>>
File: 2-7_map[1].png (515KB, 3219x1776px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2-7_map[1].png
515KB, 3219x1776px
>>7643773
there's more to the US than Alabama m88
if you're claiming that there's been no warming since 1998, just stop; we both know why 1998 is a very dishonest year to pick

>picture sauce: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/recent-us-temperature-trends
>>
>>7643246
> attacking /pol/
get back to /lgbt/ you autist. stay in your containment board
>>
>>7643838
>Doesn't know what the USCRN is
>Posts unsourced graph with no time scales

As expected from a clueless climate zealot.
>>
File: Farquaad 4.jpg (133KB, 713x960px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Farquaad 4.jpg
133KB, 713x960px
>>7643853
>can't read the source clearly provided in helpful and convenient greentext
>thinks I don't know what the United States Climate Reference Network is
>bitches don't know bout my geoscience degree

hey, where was your outrage when all these deniers posted unsourced bullshit earlier in the thread?
>>7629941
>>7632394
>>7633275
>>7633471
>>7633496
>>7638462
>>7638471
>>7638473
>>7642153
>>7642428
>>7643152
>>7643182
>>
>>7643773
also, the USCRN was completed in 2008. invoking it in support of a decades-long trend is mindblowingly stupid.
>>
>>7644034
USCRN had sufficient coverage to start publishing representative data of the CONUS already in 2005. No surface data set in use is fully complete, so then you'd have to dismiss them all, of course leaving the satellite data sets, i.e. UAH and RSS both showing over a decade and a half of cooling.

Here's the complete USCRN data covering over a decade. If you compute it, you'll find the trend is negative.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2015&month=12

It's simply dishonest to try to claim the US is currently warming, when if anything it's cooling.
>>
>>7643910
Not him, but you do realize most of the charts you linked are clearly sourced and labeled?
>>
>>7644088
that's a neutral trend, m88
but sure, to study decades and decades of warming, 10 years is SO MUCH BETTER than 7 years.
By the way, here's that UAH satellite temperature record you say we should look at. If you see a decade and a half of cooling, you need your eyes examined.
>http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

go ahead and show me another graph showing slight cooling since 1998
>>
>>7644149
pick one and show me how to access the source data from the information provided
>>
>>7644170
First two clearly source UAH and RSS (the satellite temperature data sets) lower troposphere temperatures (TLT). Let's go with the second one, it's recent enough to use the most recent versions:

UAH TLT: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt

RSS TLT: http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

These data sets and where to find them are not a secret. If you had attempted to google yourself you would have found them easily, even if you only had printouts and could not reverse image search like a proper 4channer...

Knock yourself out with the data I guess?
>>
>>7644163
>"compute" means "see"
cool input, m88

We're talking about weak trends in data with comparatively great variability. You can't expect to see the trends by merely looking at the data points, you need to process it.

>neutral trend
It's a negative trend, the reason I said "when if anything it's cooling" is because it isn't statistically significant.
>>
>>7644258
For the first one, UAH and RSS are straightforward enough. So where is he getting the "44 of the Latest Climate Models" from?
For the second one, where the hell are those trend lines coming from? There's no equation, let alone an explanation of how it was derived.

Like any good chansman, I reverse image search. That is how I know that literally all but two of the images I referenced were taken directly from a climate denial blog. The deniers will throw a fit if you reference Skeptical Science, but they'll post WUWT pictures all day and then accuse you of argumentum ad hominem if you point out the inherent bias.

More to the point, just saying "oh, it's from this company's temperature records" isn't typically good enough. A proper citation says "here is where to find the data represented or referenced in this document". By the standards you propose, I could say "the Hawasina basin had two major stages of rifting" and give my citation as "the Geological Society".
>>
>>7644296
I actually did the calculations. just a simple linear regression using Excel. the trend from those data is very slightly negative (something like -0.008 F per year, might have misplaced a decimal point), which is negligible compared to the variability within that set. hence, neutral trend; you cannot reasonably say just from looking at those points that U.S. temperature is rising or falling.

this fits into my larger point, that you and yours are deliberately narrowing your view to the extremely short term. you'll use data from 1998 because the strong El Nino effect that year can be used to make it look like the planet has cooled since, and occasionally you'll post data from the early '90s as evidence that the models are unreliable (as if climatologists could have accounted for Pinatubo ahead of time), but for the most part, you focus in on short intervals to avoid seeing the trend you dislike.

here's climate denial in a nutshell. limited sample sizes, simplistic approaches, and cherry-picked data. according to your lot, a single perceived inconsistency is enough to overturn decades and decades of records and study. that's cute.
>>
>>7643197
>>>7643152 (You)
>you mean the recent past, when remote sensors allow for weather stations to be kept further away from possible sources of influence? you're so stuck harping on one forcing that you think backs you up that you forget to consider other variables. also,

>Hurr durr denier graph so false.
Remote sensors means that we have to raise up the temperatures? What remote sensor, and for what stations are they being used? And why do they need to have their readings artificially increased? Is it these other purported forcings that you are implying? And state specifically the exact methods to get the correction factors. No, pointing to a paper which more often than not is different from the real world procedure, is not a satisfactory answer. What is the justification of the adjustments besides, hurr, durr homogenization which takes rural stations and "corrects" them to UHI tainted urban stations?

I'm will never cease to be astonished as to how you think you're fooling someone into believing that tampering the already tampered data >>7642153 is somehow a scientific process.
>>
>>7643211
>denier blog it's pulled from
>I have no substantive answer, so I will once again resort to ad hominem.

If I had a nickel for all the pathetic resorting to ad hominem by the climate "science" types here, i would never have to work again.
>>
>>7643307
Can you read? Taking out the people who read their thermometers in the afternoon removes the people who committed the TOB. And taking away those data reduced the warming to a mere 0.3 degrees. That means a correction for TOB would DECREASE the rate of warming; not increase it (which is what is being done right now by the NOAA by lowering the temps of the far past).

Sheesh. lrn2science.
>>
>>7643205
>I'm having trouble reading what you're trying to say.
>>Silly, those paper look at the homogenized rural stations which have the UHI spread to them.
>The UHI gets removed.
>>The raw data has a significantly lower warming rate than the urban data. Considering that the raw data includes urban data, the actual warming rate is even lower.
>Right, and that's the UHI effect. I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

I think you're having trouble with your reading comprehension. The upper line in the graph at
>>7633496 is the "corrected" urban data. The lower value is all of the raw data = urban + rural data.
Because of UHI, the rural data alone will be colder than the raw urban data + rural data:
raw rural data < raw urban + rural data
and from the graph:
raw urban + rural data < "corrected" urban data.
Therefore:
raw rural data < "corrected" urban data

Corrections leave the urban data much hotter than the rural data. Thus UHI has not actually been corrected for.
>nb4 TOB adjustments
As proven here, >>7643179 those adjustments are bogus. A proper adjustment would decrease the rate of warming, not increase it like the NOAA is doing.

>but hurr durr other magical "forcings"
Whatever.
>>
>>7644712
Remote sensors mean that accessibility is a much smaller factor in determining the placement of temperature stations. This allows for sensors to be relocated to better sites and read via radio link, rather than having them next to a building with all of civilization's heat sources and disruptions to air flow. This really isn't hard to understand. Note that this does not mean that current readings are being adjusted upward, but rather that readings from years past are being adjusted downward to account for past heat island issues that are avoided today.

>pointing to a paper which more often than not is different from the real world procedure
If you actually think that there are two procedures, a reasonable one that they publish and a secret one that they use to fake evidence, there's not really much hope for you. That's chemtrails-level conspiracy theorizing.

To explain my comment about forcings, you're so stuck on the fact that cities have gotten bigger that you forget that technology has allowed weather stations to be sited more remotely. The increased distance outweighs the increased urbanization, and the total change in temperature bias is negative over some recent time period (no definitive answer on the time points for you, sorry).

>>7644721
>pathetic resorting to ad hominem
I have a substantive answer; the graph doesn't cite any sources, nor does the blog it came from. for all anyone knows, it could have been pulled from someone's ass, and it certainly doesn't include any sort of context.
also, you guys throw a shit fit (as noted above) whenever anything from Skeptical Science is posted in one of these threads. is it acceptable to attack the source of a figure based on potential bias, or is it not? make up your mind.
>>
>>7644712
As for correcting for possible UHI issues, it's babby-tier simple. You get a bunch of temperature records from stations close enough to each other that they've got pretty much the same weather. You determine which ones are close enough to built-up areas that they might be contaminated. You then subtract the combined temperature record of the other (rural) stations from the urban ones and voila, you have your error.

And before you go banging on about homogenization some more, here's something to chew on. Looks like the homogenized data actually agree with the rural (clean of UHI effects) data pretty darned well.
>http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temperature-monitoring/Peterson_et_al_1999.pdf

>>7644757
>As proven here, >>7643179 those adjustments are bogus.
Didn't prove sheeit. What's your reason for saying that adjustments should lower the rate of warming? Is it that you think UHI problems have been getting worse? Because the evidence actually (shocking, I know) disagrees with you on that.
>>
File: station count.png (94KB, 1053x737px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
station count.png
94KB, 1053x737px
>>7643197
>>>7643163 (You)
>>Silly, those paper look at the homogenized rural stations which have the UHI spread to them.
>this is simply 100% made up. I guess it's easy to ignore inconvenient evidence contradicting your opinions if you just pretend that they did something other than they did

False.
From the Zeke Haufsfather paper (cowritten with an NOAA employee), which "proves" that homogenization is a correct statistical procedure:

"The PHA [Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm] does not specifically target urban station changes. Instead, the algorithm targets all shifts that appear to be unique to a particular station."

In there own words, the algorithm does not distinguish between rural and urban temp stations when it corrects (homogenizes) an "outlier." Since fewer and fewer rural stations exist now, homogenization will normalize to urban stations, Read: add UHI.

Pic related: the red line indicate the temp station number, shows a massive loss of (mostly) rural stations.

"Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full
P. 485, first paragraph under the heading "3.3.2. Data Adjusted by the Pairwise Homogenization
Algorithm (USHCN Version 2)"


Another warmist hoisted on their own petard.
>>
>>7644777
>And before you go banging on about homogenization some more, here's something to chew on. Looks like the homogenized data actually agree with the rural (clean of UHI effects) data pretty darned well.
>>http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temperature-monitoring/Peterson_et_al_1999.pdf

P. 33, "... taking the mean of all the FD values from homogeneity adjusted time series with that grid box..." In other words, almost all of the rural data is homogenized rural data. Sigh. Your desperate and deliberate ignoring of the fact that the "rural" data you refer to has already been homogenized which means normalized to urban data (more likely in the recent past). Sheesh, get over it. They even admit it: >>7644812

Its a fatally flawed statistical algorithm. BTW, as a matter of truth-in-advertising, why don't all those NOAA/NASA GISS graphs say "output of algorithm, relation to actual temperatures is doubtful.
>>
>>7643197
And here's a nice study where they looked at the effects of the homogenization algorithm to temp data from a Chinese city:
A case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373,

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

Because they're "corrected" back to urban data.

The homogenization algorithm is fatally flawed. Stop your science denial.
>>
>>7644812
>hoisted on their own petard
funny you say that, because I just happened to pull up the paper you mentioned. key takeaways:
>According to these classifications, urbanization accounts for 14–21% of the rise in unadjusted minimum temperatures since 1895 and 6–9% since 1960.
In other words, a small portion of the observed warming is due to urbanization skewing the temperatures, and in the past 50 years, over 90% is from other sources (you know, like actual warming of the planet)
>The USHCN version 2 homogenization process effectively removes this urban signal such that it becomes insignificant during the last 50–80years.
In other words, homogenization works. The homogenization process ends up removing almost all the error associated with the UHI effect.
>

And here's the real kicker. What was it you said?
>>7644812
>the algorithm does not distinguish between rural and urban temp stations...homogenization will normalize to urban stations, Read: add UHI.
Well it turns out the authors had thought of that possibility, just like good scientists who care about robust methodology should. And so they tried running the homogenization process normalizing only to rural stations, and again normalizing only to urban stations. And guess what? The homogenization algorithm spat out results nearly identical to the rural-only results.

To sum it up, as they did:
>Moreover, results from the PHA using the full set of Coop station series as reference series and using only those series from stations currently classified as rural are broadly consistent, which provides strong evidence that the reduction of the urban warming signal by homogenization is a consequence of the real elimination of an urban warming bias present in the raw data rather than a consequence of simply forcing agreement between urban and rural station trends through a spreading of the urban signal to series from nearby stations.

>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full
>>
File: station count2.jpg (14KB, 538x537px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
station count2.jpg
14KB, 538x537px
>>7644812
Correct units
>>
>>7644834
>almost all of the rural data is homogenized rural data
>which means normalized to urban data
...except that homogenization pairs only very nearby stations together; it's not a nationwide process. the only way a rural station is going to get homogenized to an urban baseline is if it's a small rural area tucked neatly between two or three large cities. do you really believe there are enough stations matching that description to drive the effect for the whole continent?

Look, I've provided data and analysis showing that climatologists are aware of this possible effect and went looking for it, and found that it's not actually a problem. All you've done is insist over and over again that the readings are flawed, despite your absolute lack of evidence to that effect. Why exactly should I take your word for it, that we can't trust the temperature record, when all the evidence says that we can?

>>7644852
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that when you look only at a heavily polluted city of 21 million souls, there are issues with UHI effects!
You'd have a good point if the entire USA were like the Beijing metropolitan area. As it stands, no dice.
Also, I looked at that study and it really doesn't say what you think it says. If you read the goddamn abstract, you'll notice that the findings were that you run into statistical trouble when relocating weather stations from city centers to suburbs, and that THAT can cause overestimate of the warming trend. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with weather stations that have sat out in the boonies for decades. Read the article before you post it in support of an argument, you amateur.
>>
File: don't do it man.gif (2MB, 256x120px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
don't do it man.gif
2MB, 256x120px
>>7644888
...that's not a unit correction issue; those are two different graphs entirely. the first one (from a denier blog, according to reverse image search) shows a ~90% drop at 1990, while yours (not from a denier blog to the best of my knowledge) shows only a ~60% drop. I'm wondering where the first one (entirely unsourced, naturally) gets its data?
nice dubtrips btw
>>
>>7644852
>Because they're "corrected" back to urban data.
And you know this is a global problem... how?
You do know what a "case study" is?

>>7644812
> In there own words, the algorithm does not distinguish between rural and urban temp stations when it corrects (homogenizes) an "outlier." Since fewer and fewer rural stations exist now, homogenization will normalize to urban stations, Read: add UHI.
But that's NOT "in their own words", you're just asserting that.

Again, you entire point boils down to claiming (without proof) that no-one but you understands the UHI effect.
Thread posts: 335
Thread images: 57


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.