/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10233950
>there's been no warming since 1998
1998 was the year of a massive Else Nino spike. The choice to start measuring the trend from this year is a clear example of cherrypicking, which is ironic considering in the same paragraph you accuse proponents of cherrypicking. Also, you chose to illustrate this with UAH data which was later found to have a large error in its diurnal correction and now shows a clear warming trend throughout.

>the 97% consensus
This entire section confuses no position on AGW with the position that the evidence is inconclusive, a distinction explicitly explained in Cook's paper. Less than 1% of papers claimed that the evidence was inconclusive. The large proportion that took no position are simply irrelevant to the question of consensus. The rest speculates about possible biases of the authors, without evidence, and ignores numerous other analyses that come to the same result. It's clear that there is a consensus in climatology for AGW.

>The UAH is nearly a pure measurement
This is incredibly false. The satellite data is a combination of data sets from non-uniform sensors. The satellite data is heavily corrected for biases. The satellites are not measuring temperature, they're measuring radiance and different groups have different methods for calculating temperature from radiance.

>The only adjustments
to UAH come in the form of averaging between individual satellites.
Completely wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

Your paper is riddled with false claims that form the basis of your argument. You should do some basic research on the topic and revise it.

>>9820080
>When the weather is warm, it's global warming. When it isn't, it's climate change.
When did I say or imply this? Putting words in my mouth is dishonest.

>When you called them a "climate change denier".
Climate change denier has nothing with the ice age. Again you're putting words in my mouth, because you have no argument what I'm actually saying. You lost.

>That wasn't always the case. Global warming was used for years until people disputed the warming trends and then the term "climate change" came into use.
This is simply false. Climate change was in use before global warming and has always been more prevalent in the scientific literature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Funny how you claim to be a skeptic yet you swallow whole such easily debunked lies.

>Like John Christy who developed global temperature data set from satellites? He vehemently disputed the corrections made to the very datasets he recorded.
I'm not sure what you're talking about considering Christy himself has published these corrections to his data set, and they show a large cooling bias.

>I didn't mention climatologists.
Then your claim is irrelevant to the accuracy of climatology. When you want to discuss science on the science board instead of shitposting, tell me.

>The model prediction which was published in the August 28, 1981 edition of "Science" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957).). The other link (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308)) is to an article about observations that disproves the model's prediction.
You'll have to be more specific, I don't see any conflict between these papers. What prediction are you talking about?