/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8874073
>So how does Beck get around the fact that old measuring techniques were open to the air and contaminated? Oh, he doesn't...

He discusses potential error levels in his article. Oh, you just skated past that didn't you? And see Jaworowski et al. (1992a, 1992b). Jaworowski reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, were many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv).

Funny how those early ice core measurements got magically ignored by future work. Its almost as if they tried to rewrite the past. Again. >>8870392

If the data doesn't fit the hypothesis so much the worse for the data. That Ladies and Gentlemen is Climate "Science" in a nutshell.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achgut.com%2Fartikel%2Fsind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert%23When%3A15%3A45%3A00Z&edit-text=&act=url

>nb4 Hurr durr, I"m going to call you a conspiracy theorist therefore you're crazy, therefore climate change is true!
The cognitive dissonance is painful, isn't it?

>>8734311
>>8734300

How dare you not believe in Scientists who will lose their job if they don't get the right answer?!
97% of Tobacco Company Scientists say tobacoo is safe! Buy more tobacco!
97% of Government Scientists say CO2 will kill us all! Pay those climate taxes!

>>8251910 >>8243966
>>>8249115
>>le unlabeled blurry memegraph
National Center for Atmospheric Research (part of the NOAA) right on the graph. And NASA buddy.
>>putting two different unlabeled graphs on the same axes
Which part of years and "Degrees Centigrade" don't you understand?
>[CURRENT YEAR]
The NASA data is current. Look it up yourself.

>>>8249182
>I suppose you thought that nobody would notice that neither figure (nor the associated data) appears in either of the references you cite?

EVERYONE, LOOK AT SOURCES BELOW
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).
And you can also get the same data at
https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap1-1/sap1-1-final-all.pdf, p. 25.
Radiosonde data from Synthesis and Assessment report 1.1, 2006, CSSP, Ch. 5, P. 116. Or see Singer, S. Fred. "Lack of consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends." Energy & Environment 22.4 (2011): 375-406.
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/22/4/375.full.pdf

>of course, that's small potatoes in light of the fact that the "predicted" and "measured" plots are on different altitudes,
One goes to 24 km, the other to 28 km. I can't ignore the extra 4 km at the top!
How's the autism going?

>over different intervals,
Left one goes from 75S to 75N the right one goes from 75S to 75N. Your autism is terrible!

>and using different scales of temperature.
The predicted hot spot is at 1.2 degrees Centigrade (left plot), the measured values where the hot spot should be is between -0.1 and 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
>Gosh I don't know how to use a scale.
Sheesh. Lrn2Scienz


>>>8249191
>>let's compare a state variable to a rate of change and complain that their derivatives don't sync up!
You idiot. That's a graph of yearly CO2 MASS CHANGE compared to Anthropogenic CO2 flux. THEY'RE BOTH (discrete) DERIVATIVES!