/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15206752
>is irradiance the only energetic activity of the sun?
It's the only significant activity.

>how do we confirm global average temperature in 1880?
Thermometers and temperature proxies.

>show me a single proxy dataset that confirms the planet is hotter now than a century ago.
Like... all of them?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675609/

>>15081402
>the global land temperature record is not fit for purpose
Proof?

>USCRN (us climate reference network), shows far less warming than the hodgepodge of the global record
This is both nonsensical and a lie. Comparing the US temperature trend to the global temperature trend is meangless. But the USCRN has a warming trend of 0.7 degrees per decade and the global record has a trend of 0.2 degrees per decade over the same time period. Why did you lie?

>satellite records are broadly lower in warming trends than land records
Anther lie, only RSS has a larger warming trend and UAH has a lower one, since UAH has not corrected for several sources of error discovered over the years.

>>14829472
>Nobody measured earths average temperature in 1900, or in 1950.
Wrong.

>you still have systematic errors like measuring temperatures at airport runways or at the roof of Oxfords natural sciences building
Insignificant due to homogenization.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Was anybody was keeping accurate <0.1C° records in central africa or maoist China in 1970? Absolutely not.
Proof?

>>14786321
We've been able to take the temperature for a lot longer than 65 years. What is your argument?

>>14722396
>>purports to account for global temperatures within a fraction of a degree C as far back as 1880
Not purported, proven.

>The methods used to homogenize all these different values are at best naive but more likely shaped by confirmation bias.
That's what the founders of Berkeley Earth said too, until they proved themselves wrong.

http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/

>Or how homogenizing older diurnal low/high temperature records with newer, mostly realtime average temperature records produces a significant warming bias in the "average temperature" trendline.
Source?

>In reality there is only one reliable source of data regarding global temperature trends, and that's the UAH satellite set and it doesn't go back very far.
LOL, then why have there been numerous corrections to the UAH dataset over time?

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-atmospheric-temperatures-prove-climate-models-and-or-surface-temperature-measurements-are-wrong-intermediate.htm

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/

You only see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

>>14712490
The only one ignoring data is you.

>>14669615
>so, within error bands (95% confidence?) the local and global temperature anomalies for a hundred years is less than half a degree celsius.
No, did you try reading the image before resounding to it?

>>14564208
Just stop posting

>>14518288
Doesn't matter.

>>12715157
>I'm really skeptical that we have enough data in all those places to go that far back.
So were scientists, they figured out that we do have enough data.

>>12584667
>>look at this drawing
Who are you quoting?

>1 degree?
More.

>And whats the margin of error?
Pic related.

>Who compiled these temperatures?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>Where?
Everywhere.

>Pure garbage.
Your baseless opinion is irrelevant.

>Imagine believing anyone took accurate temperature readings worldwide! in 1840.
There's no data for 1840, no wonder you spout false claims. You can't even read a graph.

Feel free to present your data showing "zero warming." Until then, you're a proven liar.

>>12066668
>corrections to data are tampering
Why? Oh we're just supposed to take his word for it... Or you could read about why these corrections are done and make up your own mind:

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

You could also compare the corrected data to the raw data of high quality temperature stations:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640

But Tony will never do that. He only wants to cherrypick the data, like giving you average station temperature instead of the spacial average that is actually used to determine temperature.

>there is not enough high quality temperature data in the 1890s-1920s
Oh we're just supposed to take Tony's word again... Or we could look at Berkeley Earth, a project created by AGW skeptics to answer exactly those questions about data quality and coverage. Pic related shows the data coverage is enough to determine the global average within a small range of error.

>NASA tampered with Iceland data
Isn't it odd how Tony shows the article debunking the assertion but then ignores the explanation given?

https://www.baka.com.au/environment/climate-change/nasa-chief-slaps-down-climate-sceptic-senator-malcolm-roberts-you-hold-a-number-of-misconceptions-20161121-gstp0y.html

>"During this early period there was a large daytime bias in the temperature data from Iceland as presented in this publication," which accounted for much of the "discrepancy" at Teigarhorn and less so at Vestmannaeyjar, Mr Jonsoon said.

>For the latter station, it was relocated in October 1921 to a higher elevation. "Comparative measurements at both sites have shown that the later location is about 0.7 degrees Celsius colder than the former – this relocation has to be 'adjusted' for," he said.

Why is Tony hiding the explanation he's trying to argue against?

>>11790041
>Interpolation is by definition fudging
No it's not.

>It's completely acceptable when the uncertainty is low enough to produce a verifiable prediction.
So it's competed acceptable for average tempurature.

>>11709156
>If there is are an upward trend prior to 1960 and you have no other explanation as to why that is, then you're referencing that so called '50 years' to itself.
Doesn't follow. The explanation for why there is a warming trend prior to 1960 is increasing CO2, same as the explanation. Of why there is a warning trend after 1960. Doesn't mean it's the same rate of warming. You can't even explain what problem you have with pointing out the 50 year warming trend, you're just complaining to complain.

>You can't argue that the data sets from 19th century are as plentiful as the 20th century.
I never did. So why are you bringing it up? Can you make an actual coherent argument?

>And since you're already arguing that those last 50 years we're the FASTEST you're also implying an upward trend in the previous years, especially in 50 year intervals--which you repeatedly avoided to explain why.
You never asked.

>So you can't argue that a wider set of data introduce has the possibility of pulling the average down,
You're confusing the rate with temperature. If past samples had a bias towards lower rates then more sampling would produce a faster rate. If past samples had a bias towards higher rates then more sampling would produce a lower rate. The actual rate being a warming rate doesn't stop either from occurring. In reality, the data coverage has been robust since the mid 1800s.

>Don't bother with the greentext, kiddo. Not going to waste anymore time on a faker.
Nice projection.

>>11436084
>Carbon dioxide absorbs negligible amounts of IR.
What is a "negligible amount?"

>Climate liars are claiming the earth has warmed 0.6C (whatever that means) over the last 100 years
It's 1 degree C. Next time you call someone a liar, don't lie in the same sentence. Also, what don't you understand?

>but thermometers don't even measure to that level of accuracy.
Incorrect. Pic related.

>All perceived increase in atmospheric temperature is due to urban heat islands and bad measurements (measuring stations next to airports, etc)
Incorrect. The Urban Heat Island effect has been studied by comparing urban stations to rural, high quality stations. Homogenization of the station data removes the effect from the temperature record:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2012JD018509

Any other stale denier memes that have been disproved for years?

>>11121496
>This makes no sense. Are you saying man isn't part of nature?
Doesn't matter whether you consider man a part of nature, the fact remains that man is the cause. So how does this not make sense?

>Because you claim that temperature hasn't followed CO2 until since we've started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
No, I said we've never seen CO2 increase before temperature until now, not that it's never happened. Humans have not been around for most of Earth's history.

>Because there are a lot more factors that can influence the temperature measurements
What do you mean? An indirect measurement of temperature via satellite has more factors affecting it than a direct measurement via thermometer. And many more assumptions.

>Instrumental data simply doesn't have the coverage to be considered an accurate measure of "global temperature"
It does, pic related.

>yet the satellite data was "corrected" to closely match it
When was this done? Every correction has been due to a specific mechanism of error discovered. The fact that they keep bringing the data closer to instrumental even by skeptics like Roy Spencer is indicative of the instrumental data's accuracy. You are confusing the effect for the cause.

>>11071610
No, the accuracy of older measuring techniques is well known.

>>10776181
>How accurate is the third world to monitor temperature especially over the last 100 years.
Thermometers are not that complex. We have had a solid global record for over a hundred years. You haven't even looked at the data yet you claim it's inaccurate. Not very scientific.

>Go back and look at Al Gore's original predictions and where are we now.
So Al Gore is a climate scientist? I thought we were debating the science, not celebrities.

>>10607250
This kills the deniertard.

>>10605154
>It would except obtaining a global mean temperature fairly accurately wasn’t even possible until about 20 years ago.
Lie.

>Not only that, but the data they used to calculate the mean contained almost no data from Asia or the Southern Hemisphere before satellites.
It was not almost no data and it was enough to calculate the mean. Pic related.