/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8645930
>urban data is never corrected to data with less UHI. It Is Always "Corrected" Upward. This proves that the algorithm goal-seeks warming values.
>adjustments found only in the urban ARE ALWAYS net positive; which shows that they are not correcting for UHI, they are enhancing it.
...the whole point is that when you only use urban data, you DON'T correct for UHI. (Which is why we don't just use urban data, and instead make sure that rural data is used as the baseline.) The red lines in S.I. 2 are an example of what a UHI signal looks like; the whole entire point of having them there is to show what a bad result (for the whole dataset PHA) would look like.
(also, the claim that urban-only adjustments are always positive isn't even true. the figure shows cumulative impact, not per-year impact; this means that when the line declines, even if it doesn't drop below zero, the impact for that year was negative.)

>>8645936
>But it doesn't pick all of them. And no, I'm not saying it picks an individual station.
Except it DOES pick all of them. Each station was paired with every other station within 100 miles that had the same instrumentation type; this is stated very clearly in section 3.b. of Hausfather et al. (2013).
You really need to ACTUALLY READ the papers you're critiquing, or you'll continue to look like an idiot.

>And as this graph here >>8638500 it picks "matches" for rural data, that by shear coincidence have positive temperature changes similar to urban stations. Even though they don't have UHI.
You're still laboring under the delusion that the solid lines represent "matches" that were "chosen" and that the dashed lines represent "matches" that were "not chosen". As is EXTREMELY CLEAR FROM THE FIGURE CAPTION, WHICH I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ, the solid lines represent adjustments that corresponded to adjustments found in the other analysis, and the dashed lines represent adjustments that did NOT correspond to any adjustments in the other analysis.

>>8631644
>if I'm paying you to do research, you better come to the conclusions I want you too
this is the opposite of science. this is Lysenkoism.

>>8631812
this.

>>8631837
>Climate science doesn't have (2).
[citation needed]
this may be news to you, but climatology is pretty well accepted as a legitimate field by the other sciences.

>>8125979
>hahahaha, yeah, I've heard of that show. No, I don't intend to watch it. Thanks.
which show? pic related?

>>8078236
>>8078284
>Bazinga!
yeah, don't date "nerd girls"

>>7959807
>republicans don't want power
you're really buying into this cuck narrative, huh?

>>7959819
>To first explain why climate change is a lie you have to explain why to make up the lie in the first place. After all, a lie just for the sake of being a lie doesn't make sense.
>So you have to explore the motives of the lie makers, the scientists, the left-leaning bureaucrats and find out why they are pushing the lie.
if only actual evidence that they were lying entered into your investigation at some point...

loli is cp for plebs who are so epsilon they can't even talk to kids.

you cucks make me sick