/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11168762
no comrade, it has only begun

>>11168762
Pseuds get out

>frog
>completely scientifically illiterate
like pottety

>>11168762
Global warming is not worth doing anything about unless it's global cooling in disguise.

>>11168762

>>11168778
>Temperature anamoly

>>11169114
Please provide your paper in which you make a case for a more accurate baseline for measuring global average temps.

>>11169118
Give source real values and the methodology of what's considered anomalous.

>>11169123
>hand waving intensifies

>>11169123
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=temperature+anomaly

>>11168762
Ok boomer.

>>11168762

>>11169131
Thanks googled it. No methodology.
BS climate propaganda from IPCC

>>11169208
>retard boomer can't even read
big surprise, confusing your own ignorance for a global conspiracy might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

>>11169220
How is asking for a source of the raw data and methodology of "anomaly" readings a conspiracy theory? Fucking nut job

>>11169277
>Thanks googled it. No methodology.
BS climate propaganda from IPCC

>>11169300
If make a graph based on "anomalies" you need a source for methodology and the raw data. It's propaganda by definition presented without source

>>11169332
So fucking look it up If you actually care.

>>11169340
Imagine posting a graph you don't understand it have any idea how they made it. Fucking religious zealot

>>11169348
I didn't post it retard, and I googled temperature anomaly and clicked on like 2 links and read exactly how it's quantified, why can't you do the same?

So is this site just contrarian for the sake of contrarianism? Why is this place so fucking stupid?

>>11169406
I have the report from IPCC open right now. Where are you referring dip shit

>>11169422
When you read through the report they use anomaly for everything. anomaly seasonal weather anomaly Regional weather anomaly precipitation.
Do they qualify what they mean by that? No. It becomes a catch all for "I don't know"

>>11168762
>>11169114
>>11169123
>>11169208
>>11169277
>>11169332
>>11169348
>>11169422
Shut the fuck up boomer scum

>>11169434
>Religious doomer mad that IPCC doesn't provide methodology of anomalies after wasting 10 minutes skimming technical report.

Anyone else hyped for global climate change? All the gloom and doom makes me so excited. I want 5 feet of sea level rise. I want 5 degree warming. I want mass food shortages. I want billions of climate refugees. I want an absolute and total collapse of this fucking shitshow. I only hope I can survive long enough to see how bad it gets.

>>11169422
>Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:from Global to Regional
explains it in a pretty retard proof manner, you can literally pull the historical and observational data from the organization's websites if you want

>>11168762
You're not worth our time anymore

>>11169483
It doesn't qualify what is considered an anomaly at all.
Good luck holding your breath to save on co2 emission cuck

>>11169570
You literally didn't read enough to get simple terminology did you?

>>11169617
I did it's apparent you're trying to obfuscate the fact the methodology from raw data to anomalies is not included. You pretending that the technical report includes this just goes to show how ethically compromised you are or how much of a retard you are. Probably both.

We can just nuke the atmosphere who cares?

>>11169661
temperature anomaly referrers to temperature relative to a baseline. Both the selected baseline were clearly stated as well as the source of data. Go fucking download the historical dataset and plot it yourself.

>>11169685
Do you understand what methodology means you, clueless Cuck. What's the fucking rational of the baseline. It's a model completely detached from the data and still no raw data. No methodology of the baseline

>>11169695
they literally tell you exactly what the baseline is and what data they used. What the fuck are you even on about?

>>11169707
Wrong they do not have the methodology nor the data.

>>11169709
Do you not understand how to read a citation? is that the problem here?

>>11169715
You ready to admit it doesn't include data or methodology then? Maybe you shouldn't use graphs from shit you can't easily point to where the data comes from.

>>11169719
>Figure 10.1 | (Left-hand column) Three observational estimates of global mean surface temperature (GMST, black lines) from Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4), Goddard Institute of Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), and Merged Land–Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (MLOST), compared to model simulations [CMIP3 models – thin blue lines and CMIP5 models – thin yellow lines] with anthropogenic and natural forcings (a), natural forcings only (b) and greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing only (c). Thick red and blue lines are averages across all available CMIP5 and CMIP3 simulations respectively. CMIP3 simulations were not avail-able for GHG forcing only (c). All simulated and observed data were masked using the HadCRUT4 coverage (as this data set has the most restricted spatial coverage), and global average anomalies are shown with respect to 1880–1919, where all data are first calculated as anomalies relative to 1961–1990 in each grid box. Inset to (b) shows the three observational data sets distinguished by different colours. (Adapted from Jones et al., 2013.) (Right-hand column) Net adjusted forcing in CMIP5 models due to anthropogenic and natural forcings (d), natural forcings only (e) and GHGs only (f). (From Forster et al., 2013.) Individual ensemble members are shown by thin yellow lines, and CMIP5 multi-model means are shown as thick red lines.
I picked a random graph, literally everything you need to know is right there.

>>11169724
Retard this isn't data or methodology

>>11169729
so the problem IS that you can't read an in text citation

>>11169731
Rabbit hole citations is a good sign of bullshit. The "technical" report has no methodology or raw data.

>>11169736
So you want them to copy and paste every paper and study cited into a 1000+ page report because you're too lazy to look up a citation? Did you drop out of middle school?

>>11169744
What part of rabbit hole citation is a clear sign of bullshit don't you understand?

>>11169747
That's probably the dumbest fucking thing you've said so far. I guess scientists should completely reinvent the wheel every time they do anything because some middle school dropout can't follow a citation.

>>11169755
Projecting much, retard? You are calling on "scientist" like some fucking angel of a religion. Nameless cucks, rabbit hole citations, and idiots willing to spread graphs that support their confirmation bias.

>>11169763
you've defined literally any citation as being a "rabbit hole" fuck off you ignorant retard.

>>11169764
What's in those citations? Much citations. Get your head out of your ass and provide the methodology and data for the graph baseline.

>>11169769
it's provided go fucking read it

>>11169776
>Doesn't know
Protip ass wipe. If you really believe this bullshit you better know where to pull information for methods and data.
You calling on citations that don't provide that might as well be saying "turn to Genesis 1:1". Congrats replacing your religion with a shitier version of another.

>>11169780
your own failings are no one's but your own.

>>11169798
Your religion is your own and doesn't belong one sci.

>>11169800
is it religion if literally every claim can be verified if you aren't a lazy piece of shit?

>>11169806
I guess someone needs to create science but for lazy faggots.

>>11169806
Verified? Would love to please cite the methodology and raw data. Oh wait you can't . You want to pretend it's spread across 1000+ citations and makes perfect sense with no room for error. Come the fuck on you nut

>>11169811
It's clearly cited you lazy faggot. Go read it instead of shitting up this thread with your retardation.

>>11169815
Oh yes, it's because I'm lazy I can't find your imaginary god, I mean, you methodology and raw data

>>11169842
I mean, if god gave clear instructions on how to find the step by step descriptions of everything he ever did i think i would probably believe in him too.

>>11168762
It's not a meme, bub.

>>11169887
God isn't real
And neither is your bullshit

>>11168762
Go back to >>>/pol/

>>11169902
The evidence is right in front of your face you're just too lazy and stupid to actually read any of it. That's your problem not the scientific community's.

>>11168763
Based Yuri

>>11169942
If you can't cite the actual methodology and the actual raw data you are not doing science. Stop pretending to be one. You post shit you don't understand and then point to a sea of documents and say "it's in there somewhere"
Religion not science

>>11169952
It's clearly cited though, I'm not going to explain it to you like a child, figure it out for yourself. It's not anyone's fault but your own if you're too lazy and stupid to do so.

>>11169958
"Clearly" that's what's bullshit. It's clearly not cited where the methology is for how they took data from 1000s of source and used that to make their baseline. You don't seem to understand or you are pretending not to understand that the methodology is not presented nor the raw data used to make it.

>>11169965
If it was clearly cited he could have ended this conversation hours ago without this autistic circle jerk

>>11169966
I already did. He can go read everything he wants as to how HadCRUT4 GISTEMP MLOST, etc collect and handle data. He's a fucking lazy retard though.

Guys, we won't solve the problem of constant bait threads on climate change until you stop responding.

>>11169970
Well explain this to me like I'm five and ignore him. I googled these and see that that are datasets of different types. Did ipcc average these from their baseline?

>>11169976
>Pretending to solve shit behind a keyboard.

>>11169986

as you can see here, >>11169724 it's all explained, but if you don't get it.

MLOST is one of the most complete historical data sets. The baseline is the average global temp from 1880 to 1919 though it's recalculated based on the 1961–1990 period as its more commonly used by climatologists. This baseline is compared to observational data from HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP as well as MLOST's recent data. The rest is comparing model predictions which account for forcings related to human emitted CO2 and models which ignore them. any other questions?

>>11170029
>the average global temp from 1880 to 1919
You seriously think temp data from 1880 to 1919 can be considered GLOBAL temp data? What a joke.

>>11170045
There's definitely a greater margin of error compared to current measurements but there's considerably more instrumental data than you seem to think which agrees quite well with temperature proxies.

>>11170029
What does it mean to recalculate the data from the eariler set? Wouldn't they just be raw temps?

>>11170051
How much of the earth does 1880 to 1919 instrumental data cover?

>>11170058

>>11170053
Raw temps actually aren't terribly useful, as they don't tell you anything by themselves. You have to do a ridiculousness amount of work to get data which actually provides useful information. They just pulled a temperature anomaly data set (which used a 1950 baseline) and re calibrated the baseline to the 1880-1919 period. There no reason to re do all that work when MLOST already did it all.
This is a pretty good summary of why temperature anomaly is used.
>https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/why-use-temperature-anomaly/

>>11170077
That's a pathetic amount of coverage using primitive measuring instruments. The global temperature record should start when satellites were measuring temperature, and even then, it's not truly global as much of the data is still made up.

If the global temp record did start from the late 90's, then the predicted warming wouldn't be present.

>>11169136
>>11169220
>>11169434
>ok boomer

>>11170102
>That's a pathetic amount of coverage using primitive measuring instruments. The global temperature record should start when satellites were measuring temperature, and even then, it's not truly global as much of the data is still made up.

why do you say that? Temperature is distributed throughout the planet, even breaking things into 800KM sections gives you huge amounts of information about adjacent areas, as heat can't just hide in a tiny box, it gets distributed. Do you actually have some information which supports your case that all climatology before 1995 is useless or are you just talking out of your ass?
Here's a pretty good study on the topic. With quite meaningful results with quite low error bounds all things considered.
>https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_ha00700d.pdf

>If the global temp record did start from the late 90's, then the predicted warming wouldn't be present.
well it's still continuing to warm with no end in sight. >>11169157

>>11170108
Okay boomer.

>>11170099
>You have to do a ridiculousness amount of work to get data which actually provides useful information
I understand the link makes a case for that. But that seems odd to drop specific data points because they show drastic changes to weather in short periods of time. Averaging entire year into a single data point seems odd given the short dataset we have of the modern era in general.

>>11170147
So are these anomalies of annual averages?

>>11170114
>why do you say that? Temperature is distributed throughout the planet, even breaking things into 800KM sections gives you huge amounts of information about adjacent areas, as heat can't just hide in a tiny box, it gets distributed. Do you actually have some information which supports your case that all climatology before 1995 is useless or are you just talking out of your ass?
The global temperature record needs to be as accurate as possible, and to do this, as much of the earth must be measured as possible.

Temp data from the 1880's to early 1900's not only lacks a massive amount of surface coverage of land and sea, but has zero measurements of the atmosphere at higher altitudes. Thermometers were also used, which lack the precision of modern instruments and get more and more inaccurate over time. We have no way of checking if the measurements were recorded correctly, it's taken on complete faith.There are also issues with how sea surface temperatures were measured due to the type of bucket that was used and its vulnerability to being heated by the sun or cooled by the wind. The urban heat island effect is yet another issue. This is poor science.

Satellites aren't going to be affected by these issues, and they offer much more coverage, although still not truly global, they are going to be much more accurate. Any graph that uses temp data from before satellites is pathetic science and highly deceptive, as it gives the impression the data is just as accurate as modern measurements.

>>11170159
Error ranges are provided, you seem to be disregarding incredibly useful data for literally no good reason. Your argument isn't convincing in the least.

>>11170166
>Error ranges are provided, you seem to be disregarding incredibly useful data for literally no good reason
I don't want limited, primitive temperature data with guesstimated error ranges included in graphs about global temperature that also use satellite data. That is piss poor science.
>Your argument isn't convincing in the least.
I have higher scientific standards than you. You're a climate "scientist", aren't you?

>>11170175
different anon here, sorry to chime in from the sidelines, but do you want a primer on sigfigs and stderr? I'm not going to try to convince you of anthropogenic climate change (the evidence is overwhelming, if you don't believe it at this point I can't help), but I'm kind of curious whether you're actually searching for an explanation here or just looking for a fight

>>11170234
You're another climate "scientist", aren't you?
>I'm not going to try to convince you of anthropogenic climate change (the evidence is overwhelming
This doesn't mean anything - pretty much anything on earth could be said to have an effect on climate, it's the amount that actually matters.
>but I'm kind of curious whether you're actually searching for an explanation here or just looking for a fight
What explanation do you have to justify old instrumental temperature data being included in GLOBAL temperature graphs that also use satellite data? This implies the data from the 1880's can be viewed the same as data from the 2000's.

>>11168769
>2007
>IF WE DONT DO ANYTHING NYC WILL BE UNDERNEATH WATER
>2019
>shithole NYC still above water

>OK boomer
Second worst and cringiest meme 2019.

>>11170266
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>11170268
ok boomer

>>11168778
They had shitty natural models.

The worst thing about this is when it'll become obvious that it was BS all along, the left will go on and on about how we finally managed to save the earth, thanks to veganism and wind turbines.

>>11168762
Come closer and really interact in a way, that you'll say this, and I'll blame kinetic force on crushing your skull instead of something else.

All you can argue with is atropogenic sliding calendars... What is the day at your side of iternet?

>>11170271
Yes, all that telescopes in middle age on the orbit and fuckers are telling us about global warming...

I think the atmosphere is getting thin air.

>>11170271
I think in the "dark" ages, that means without elektricity, or at it's minimum, .... Renessaince again pretty low... We should go back to dark age to have a new reneisance.

Sun is getting angry at us. US,

As we can see, as slavery became illegal, it's all fucked up again and sun is really angry...

Really deep subconcius attack with imaginary data.

Bonus points for gradient.

>>11170451
Yes, we know that we completely monitor sea water for temperature and it's okey. Hall never makes mistakes. Programmers do. You're looking at Shell. Who could be lying there? Ones who sells the gas or fucking marijuana and working perpetuum mobiles?

>>11170479
p.s.

I don't know what doctors promised you, but it will last longer than you.

And once and for all, before stealing came into being fun, because nobody has a food because everybody was addicted to PC games, cables ware laying on the floor and nobody touched them...

Then suddenly dark age, motherfuckers addicted to cursor nailed dude on the cross, because they believed world is a simulation...

Then they made roofs out of gold, which cables ware made from... Because in 3D it's omnipotentier than superconductor cooled by carrying capacity...

Yes, you are just idiots who doesn't want to sit at home and play PC games, therefore you go to work, because you enjoy PHYSICS SIMULATOR(TM) and you want to do some work that is transformed by holy printed money....

We've got everything, climate was okay, then some idiot came up messing with root simulation and now whole team of sysadmins are trying to fix it.

Sorry for players, it's included in terms of use of being born, once we fuck up, there is no longer you.

Motherfuckers steal gold because they didn't have roof over their head, gold from gold that can cool itself by carried capacity.

Yes, BAIT is here to blame, but a different for.

>>11170473
You speak in a schizophrenic manner. Contact your doctor.

>>11170521
No, I am speaking using only mathematics my doctor used to diagnose me you retarded dipshit.

>>11170528
On the other perspective... he could be reading my mind, and that is psychopathic too. Or blueprinting, which means I am a robot, and he didn't showed me license to manufacture me.

>>11170538
I lost 6 IQ points reading this

>>11170542
Maybe he was just projekting...

>>11169476
It'll be fun to watch it collide with AI, biotech and VR/AR

>>11170266
Why can't these climate alarmist ever be right? I just want the urbanite liberals to drown.

>>11168762
Nah, if anything Green New Deal will be FDR all over again but this time the racists get the bullet.

Or at the very least, forced into day care centers where they are indoctrinated into believing in love and tolerance. It'll use VR and cartoon ponies