/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8656853
>The instrumental records shows that the proxy data is unreliable. Therefore the proxy construction is unscientific.
So your claim is that because the instrumental records concur with the proxy reconstruction, the proxies are unreliable? That's downright retarded.
Or are you saying that the proxies are unreliable because they record a coarser time series and miss short-term fluctuations? Because that's a wholly separate issue, and it's perfectly reasonable to use different metrics for different timescales; it's all about what interval you're interested in.

>they regressed the buoy data to the ship data. (Not vice versa.) Yes, they were adjusted upwards by 0.12 degrees to fit with ship data.
>Unchanged buoy data was much closer to having a flat trend.
a big fat fucking [citation needed] on that claim, big boy.

>>8622304
>unironically posting about PizzaGate
consider suicide

>>8600186
I posted that graph to show you the trend in atmospheric CH4 during the 1970s, you biscuit. amazingly enough, I'm capable of reading two graphs and keeping both of them in my mind long enough to draw conclusions from them together. are you?

>>8600211
LOL, even WUWT's translation makes it clear "we" refers to industrialized countries, not the IPCC. loosen your tinfoil a little.
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/