/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7482089
>UHI, not corrected for instead anti-corrected.
So if I move a seesaw up and then down, and you see the seesaw is lower than it was before, that means I never moved it up? Is this really the logic of a "skeptic"?

>Ah yes, I was counting the seconds until you resorted to Ad Hominem.
There's no ad hominem there. Look again or figure out what ad hominem means.

>You have officially lost the argument because you can't provide actual evidence + logic.
There is plenty of evidence in this thread and in the literature, you're the one who has failed to refute it. Stop projecting.

>>7482144
>>7482147
>Clean data has been distorted to give it a greater warming trend. That's bad science.
Looking at single stations tells us nothing about whether or not homogenization works, because the entire point is that it's a method of compiling the data. There are many studies that have shown the warming trend is not caused by homogenization and is robust across all reconstruction methods. Even if you cherrypick the best stations, you'll still see the same trend, because the corrections you are so worried about are insignificant. Homogenization corrects bad stations much more. Did you actually check to see if the trend was significantly effected before you assumed that it was? Obviously not. Please take your pre-conceived narrative elsewhere if you are not going to be scientific.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

>>7482176
>False. That paper tries to provide an excuse to lessen the cooling from the mid/late 40s to about 1975. This email clearly says, ""partly explain the 1940's WARMING blip"
If you actually read the paper, you'll see that it describes the switch from 1939 to 1941 from European ships measuring sea temps with canvas buckets to US ships measuring the temps via engine inlet. This led to the most noticeable anomaly, a WARMING blip. After that, insulated buckets were used, which led to the record cooling back down. See pic.