/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11654273
-urally pseudoscience

>>11654273
-alie portman

>>11654273

-ive from all agricultural explotations and landfills in the most part.

ionalsocialist propaganda

>>11654273
-ionalsocialist propaganda

Holy shit every tick represents 100,000 years and the last one is 100 years and uses adjusted data vs poor quality proxies.

>>11655094
Why do the sizes of the tick marks matter?

>uses adjusted data vs poor quality proxies.
What is wrong with adjusted data and how are the proxies poor quality?

>>11655164
>Temperature anomaly compared against forcing
>"What is wrong with adjusted data and how are the proxies poor quality?"
How did it feel to earn your GED?

>>11655411
not really answering his question

>>11654273
Post the paper and read the methodology. Because the sudden rise is pretty exactly at the point in the timeline the parameter(s) are measured differently. Which is a no go and makes this paper rather worthless.

So many fucking cucks in these threads

I have friends in climate science across the UK, at leading universities (Oxford AOPP, Imperial SPAT), and they all say the same thing - climate change is obviously real.

But some retard behind a keyboard knows more than the scientists who spend their lives on this. This isn't a fucking debate to be had, it's a consensus.

Fuck off of /sci/ if you're not a fucking scientist, get a life

>>11656092
>I have friends in climate science across the UK, at leading universities (Oxford AOPP, Imperial SPAT), and they all say the same thing - climate change is obviously real
Your argumentum ad verecundiam is proof enough you couldn’t assess the validity of scientific findings. So unless you can make a valid argument ad rem you should just not voice opinion.

>>11654273
IPCC said global warming is man made. Quickly everybody pay tax to IPCC to stop global warming!

>>11656092
>appeal to authority
Why do people in science studies don't learn about basic logic?

>>11654273
data modelling is not science

imagine if an economist turned up with the data models and said everybody in the world had to invest in some random stock because it had the highest probability of growth

>>11656245
It's retards like you who make me hate humanity.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=i-qBOyrD0-0

>>11656265
I am a "data scientist"
if you think data modelling is science you are an absolute retard
our manager gives us the data and our job is to make a plausible model that gives the output the stakeholders want

>>11655411
>>Temperature anomaly compared against forcing
How does this answer my question? What is your point?

>>11655962
Which parameter is inaccurate?

>>11656178
>only the retards who don't have any sources to back them up can speak!

>>11656289
>I am a "data scientist"
>I create data models for non-scientific applications
>therefore any data model is not for scientific applications
Nice LARP retard.

>>11656416
>I created a strawman to feel smug

>>11656398
The paper uses different methods to figure out temperature and atmospheric Co2 ppm in different time intervals. Because before approximately 1850 there hasn’t been any real time measurement to speak off. So it’s extrapolation from other measurements. In other words indirect. And that’s not taking into account our measuring ability was rather terrible even 50 years ago. So even the data from back than is almost incommensurable.
>>11656403
I criticized the OP for not providing any link to the paper and for misrepresentation of the quality of the study. And provided specific critics of the methodology. You on the other hand just claim your opponent is dumb. Which frankly I‘m just going to ignore. Because there is nothing I can scientifically respond to, since you didn’t provide any papers, or any scientific argument at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM

>>11654273
Any value left of the line is a smoothed average
Any value right of the line is an unsmoothed average

>>11656478
>The paper uses different methods to figure out temperature and atmospheric Co2 ppm in different time intervals. Because before approximately 1850 there hasn’t been any real time measurement to speak off. So it’s extrapolation from other measurements. In other words indirect.
None of this implies it's inaccurate.

>And that’s not taking into account our measuring ability was rather terrible even 50 years ago.
Wrong, pic related.

>I criticized the OP for not providing any link to the paper and for misrepresentation of the quality of the study. And provided specific critics of the methodology.
You didn't actually show anything about the study.

>You on the other hand just claim your opponent is dumb.
No I didn't.

>>11656558
Incorrect, ice core temperature is not a smoothed average.

>>11656594
It is by literal definition
You can't just have discrete deltas in your measurement no matter how precise your instruments can be

>>11656501
>We haven't really seen any global warming for the past decade
This is is just cherrypicking time intervals.

>Medieval warming period
He uses a graph based on the temperature in one location as if it shows global temperature. Globally, the medieval warm period is barely noticeable compared to current warming. Pic related.

>The last 10000 years
Again he presents a graph showing temperature in one place as if it shows global temperature.

>CO2 is not driving climate, CO2 is not acting as a greenhouse gas
The evidence he presents doesn't support these claims. Showing that interglacial warming was caused by something other than a CO2 increase doesn't show that CO2 can't be a driver of climate at other times. It's also idiotic to say that CO2 was not acting as a greenhouse gas. CO2 always has to act as a greenhouse gas, it doesn't stop being transparent to sunlight and it doesn't stop absorbing and emitting heat just because something else started the warming during an interglacial. And you can't explain interglacial warming without including CO2's contribution.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

>water vapor feedback has never been documented, it's never been seen in the geological record
LOL, since Clark already admits that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, all that needs to be documented is that warming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is documented literally every day and nothing in the geological record of the climate can be explained without taking into account this feedback.

Clark's claims get more and more ridiculous and counterfactual throughout the video. I don't see how anyone who fails at basic logic and gets such basic facts wrong can be called a scientist.

>there is no hotspot
There is: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007

>>11656501
>solar activity is driving the climate
He uses an unsourced graph which shows solar activity increasing, but it's been decreasing for several decades and we are now near a grand solar minimum, while temperature is increasing faster than ever.

>>11656653
>It is by literal definition
Please explain what definition shows this.

>You can't just have discrete deltas in your measurement no matter how precise your instruments can be
Huh? Ice core temperature is based on analysis of the gases in discrete layers of ice. Where is there a smoothed average?

>>11656577
>None of this implies it's inaccurate.
Different methodologies have to be shown to not produce different results, which the paper doesn’t.
>Wrong, pic related.
Picture says nothing about the accuracy and it’s even unclear how the data was generated.
>You didn't actually show anything about the study.
I did. And OP filed to provide the source. Like you.

>>11656851
>filed
failed

>>11656851
>Different methodologies have to be shown to not produce different results, which the paper doesn’t.
They produce temperature anomaly, so they're the same. If they produce different results, at least one is inaccurate. Again, where is your evidence they're inaccurate? As for their compatibility see >>11656692

>Picture says nothing about the accuracy
Of course it does. Did you even look at the graph?

>and it’s even unclear how the data was generated.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

>I did.
Where?

>>11656692
That graph is just random noise in hockey stick shape. Only a fake scientist would draw such a ridiculous graph.

>>11654273
>implicit presumption
See the problem here?

>>11659592
>That graph is just random noise in hockey stick shape.
Noise is unexplained variation in data. Which part do you think is unexplained?

>Only a fake scientist would draw such a ridiculous graph.
What is ridiculous about it?

>>11658412
You are making the positive claim at least provide the evidence.

-urally caused by chinks, pajeets, and ooga boogas, not white people.

>>11661102
What evidence do you need?

>>11654273
>800, 700.600,500,400,300,200,100, 0,1900,2000
Nice graph but what does it look like on a linear scale?

>>11654273
>>11663001
Also how does
>look it's not natural
translate into
>we're all gonna die
If something is bad because it's not a natural occurrence why don't you just go live in the jungle instead of the artificial human engineered environment you currently inhabit. The solution to this problem is more capitalism (and not coperate socialism), more technological development, more manmade change. The bigger and richer our economy gets, the more and faster our technology advances the faster we can adapt to and afford solutions to problems. You think people in the 1800's could afford to worry about climate change? of course not, it wasn't economically viable to care about, give people excess income by deregulating and taxing less and you'll give them the leeway to care about these lesser long-term problems. Or continue the stagnation and importation of low IQ high carbon migrants so the problem takes longer to be solves or doesn't get solved at all.

>>11656092
>I have friends in climate science across the UK, at leading universities (Oxford AOPP, Imperial SPAT), and they all say the same thing - climate change is obviously real.

Except they don't and the ones that do, are idiots
Nils-Axel Morner, a former head of the Paleo-Geophysics and Geodynamics Department in Stockholm, says a new solar-driven cooling period for the Earth is ‘not far off’.

https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/new-sun-driven-cooling-period-of-earth-not-far-off_XL2fQnjc4xohwf7.html

>>11663059
>getting your information from a guy who believes in dowsing
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/sky-news-australia-interview-falsely-claims-that-global-cooling-is-coming-soon/

>>11663001
Pic related.

>>11663026
>Also how does
>>look it's not natural
>translate into
>>we're all gonna die
It doesn't. You're confusing your delusional strawmen with reality again. Time to take your meds.

>The solution to this problem is more capitalism (and not coperate socialism), more technological development, more manmade change. The bigger and richer our economy gets, the more and faster our technology advances the faster we can adapt to and afford solutions to problems.
Agreed. Those who want to harm the economy by subjecting it to global warming are clearly anti-capitalists and are against civilization.

>You think people in the 1800's could afford to worry about climate change?
So things people were unaware of in the 1800s are not problems? Amazing.

>>11663362
Don't post pics of yourself online anon you might get recognised

>>11656092
I also know people from other research departments and I believe that their research is utter trash. What is that anecdote supposed to prove ?

On a side note, I decided to look into the Brazilian wildfires again because the media has dropped the issue all together and the conclusion the NASA drew two months ago says that it was not that bad compared to previous years and that the fires were mostly attributed to deforestation and shit.

Does anyone have any data for the Aussie fires ? I can't find anything and this shit was also sold to us as proof of global warming.

>>11661852
Give me the papers and I look at the methodology and their calculations. Until now only some childish pictures that show nothing are in this thread.

-soc code for "****"

>>11656279
you do realize this doesn't mean they will be wiped by 2000 and that he meant nations like micronesians et consortes and that he was 100% right and please have sex and go back to your board.

>>11664665
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

>>11654273
natty natty boom boom?