/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11702870
Then why post graphs of two climates which are constantly changing

>>11702877
They aren't

>>11702870
not global

>>11702870

>>11702870
I know.
>>11702883
Thanks.

>>11702877
Because the term 'Climate Change' doesn't mean natural fluctuation of meteorological systems in correlation with ecological phenomenon.

It means the models don't need to predict anything and society must invest in renewables before it's too late.

If you do not support energy alternatives, not only are you a science denier, you're part of the problem. I seriously hope you are gang raped one day in your own home. You fucking stupid people are killing the planet. You deserve to be tortured to death for what you've done. Go to hell!

>>11702870
stop spreading fake information. the increase of the average world temperature over the last 50 years is hard data. Everyone can check on that. Even independent climate stations have shown the same upwards trend.

>>11702897
wtf bros... I don't believe climate change now

>>11703031
who cares?

>>11703020
What is the significance of '50 years'?

>>11702870
Conclusions from cherrypicked data aren't real

>>11703020
that happens all the time you retard. Climate change isn't real.

>>11703066
The last 50 years is the period of fastest warming in the temperature record.

>>11703151
>climate change happens all the time
>climate change isn't real

Coronavirus showed what these "models" look like. Utter fabricated bullshit, start to finish, people should lose degrees over this.

>>11702883
Fixed

>>11703156
>Epidemiological models are the same as climate models
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>>11703153
No, why the period of 50 years

>>11703002
>Because the term 'Climate Change' doesn't mean natural fluctuation of meteorological systems in correlation with ecological phenomenon.
Correct, it means large-scale, long-term variation in weather averaged over space and time. It doesn't have to be natural.

>It means the models don't need to predict anything
But they have. See >>11703170

>>11703178
Because the last 50 years is the period of fastest warming in the temperature record.

>>11702870
>Yee dude, its just hoax made up by dumb libtards.

If you can't look at the data and make conclusions yourself then you are a brainlet.

Climate denialists are the worst scum on the internet: intentionally dishonest fossil fuel shills spreading disinfo to keep the gravy train rolling a few more years despite the awful consequences for the world for centuries to come.

Climate change is real, its terraforming for our reptilian overlords.

Just look at Trump, if he isn't a lizard wearing a skin suit than I'll eat my hat. Just look at the eyes, you can see where the human skin doesn't fit correctly. he can't even talk properly.

>>11704380
nice shitpost faggot

I've never understood why climate change deniers are anti environment?

Don't they want to live in a nice area with clean air, water and weather that doesn't kill them.

Guess they're all happy living on floodplains and shitting where they eat, like India.

>>11703191
So, your basis is circular logic.

>>11702870
Yeah! Think of all those poor billion-dollar oil businesses, car manufacturers and electronic companies! They could never make ends meet if they had more regulations and increasing competition! They've never been documented to fund anti-climate change 'scientist,' speakers and the media! Their best interest is obviously the people and society! Everyone who questions them are just commie bastards who care about nothing but being right! Scientists are just jealous because they didn't choose to go into a more lucrative profession!

>>11704536
*electricity companies

>>11704483
Huh? Where do you see circular logic?

>>11702883
>the science is settled!
Or so they scream.. Yet were you to try to stop funding for climate research...

>>11704385
lol shut up lizard

>>11704564
1. The last 50 years is period of fastest warming
2. Why is the length of 50 years important?
3. Because it's the fastest warming

As compared to the last 100 or 5 even? If it's only a record what else is ther to connect it to reality?

Surely the advent of weather satellites wouldn't have anything to with this 'last 50 years' when you compare any periods of changes?

>>11703165
>consensus
Is a shit argument, even though I do believe in climate change, you're making an argument from authority and nothing more.

>>11708080
motherfucker if scientific consensus isn't a good argument then just throw the whole scientific method away it's useless

>>11708088
But it isn't, you're just saying "most scientists believe X"

>>11708094
consensus isn't not "most scientists think 2d > 3d therefore it must be true," because yeah that's just appealing to the fact that a bunch of allegedly smart people believe something. This is a case of "my results support the truth of this." "hey so do mine." "hey me too." etc. It's reproducible results being reproduced and science working as intended, not just a bunch of researchers getting together and going "hey do you guys think climate change is real?" with no actual research being done

>>11708101
Then refer to the actual evidence and provide it. "Consensus" means "everyone agrees."

>>11708088
majority consensus is how you will get the laws changed, but not how you will be getting more people to join your consensus. present actual arguments if you want people to join your side. "more than 50% of this group of people are on my side" isn't an argument. this is the science board, we expect science here, not politics.

Remember that science is our attempt to describe our known universe and derive the rules that govern our universe. Every scientist has their biases and want to validate them. In addition, scientists have their expertise and want to use their knowledge to explain how the universe works. The old saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So as you listen to the experts, you need to understand their field and how they fit into the current rules, according to their expertise. We are also very egoistical to assume that we know all the answers. Only 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat. A psychologist can be a scientist, but I would not rely on them for a valid rule what will be the final effect on global warming. There are way to many variables, too many probable relationships between those variables to pronounce a firm and fixed result.

>>11702870
>>11702883
At least give a study or something that can be discussed. The pictures are useless.

>>11702883
nice strawman faggot, learn to think critically

>>11708273
As you can see, you don't need fancy scientific studies to collect (you)s

>>11708051
That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be this:

The last 50 years is the period of fastest warming
Therefore the last 50 years is the period of fastest warming

The fact that the last 50 years is the period of fastest warming in the record is not based on itself, it's based on empirical measurement. So there is no circular reasoning.

>As compared to the last 100 or 5 even?
As compared to the entire temperature record.

>If it's only a record what else is ther to connect it to reality?
What do you mean? How is it any less real than anything else you consider important?

>Surely the advent of weather satellites wouldn't have anything to with this 'last 50 years' when you compare any periods of changes?
You don't need satellite records to see this. >>11703143 doesn't use satellite records.

>>11708080
How is all research coming to the same conclusion an "argument from authority?" You seem to think the consensus is a popularity contest when it's a consensus of scientific evidence.

>>11708121
>Then refer to the actual evidence and provide it.
What do you think published research is?

>"Consensus" means "everyone agrees."
In a scientific context it means "all the research agrees."

>>11708121
Consensus means general agreement. Also your argument basically boils down to.
>So you like climate change huh name all their albums.

>>11708230
Simply saying that scientists can be biased or incorrect doesn't show their biased or incorrect in this case. You argue without evidence that we can't rely on scientists but then expect us to accept your determination that "there are too many variables." Have you actually determined this or are you just trying to reach the conclusion you want?

>>11708347
It's dishonest is what is. You picked the 50 year period because more temperatures were recorded globally than any previous years, thus increasing the average significantly.

>>11708382
you've shown none evidence to trust statements about consensus among scientist, either

>>11704202

>>11708121
These guys have done a great job of compiling all that together.
https://skepticalscience.com/

>>11708569
The difference is, the facts don't support the climate denialist position.

>>11708544
>You picked the 50 year period
No I didn't.

>because more temperatures were recorded globally than any previous years, thus increasing the average significantly.
LOL how do more measurements increase an average? Do you understand what an average is?

>>11708627
No, the difference is atheists have no problem with creating a better society.

>>11703002
I support renewables because its absurd to believe resources will be bountiful indefinitely with an exponentially growing population.

>>11704202
>livable cities
>healthy children
>energy independence
>clean water, air
They really like to strawman their critics huh? Do they really think there are people out there pushing for children to be unhealthy or "unlivable cities", whatever that means.

>>11708627
That's not what the cartoon is arguing. It's arguing the ends justifies misinformation and faulty reasoning.

>>11703002
Fuck it, I'll bite the bait. You don't want to save the earth, you want whites to be cucks. Your (((solutions))) often end the family structure and shit, suggesting we shouldn't reproduce while Israel floods Europe with sand people.

>>11702897
What is this supposed to show? That climate models are accurately predicting the global temperature record? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make

>>11703165
Retroactively changing what people said does not make them true now.

>>11708636
>No I didn't
--> >>11703191

>LOL how do more measurements increase an average?
LOL you're suggesting there wasn't an upward trend prior?

>>11708660
Yes, there definitely are. Just because they don't realize what they're doing doesn't mean they're not doing it.

>>11708707
I was specifically referring intentially.

>>11708681
>LOL you're suggesting there wasn't an upward trend prior?
No, I wasn't implying that, even though there was an clearly an upward trend before that. I'm saying that increasing the amount of measurements doesn't increase the average. Again, do you understand what an average is?

>>11708713
Doesn't matter, they're still doing it.

>>11708727
>even though
And now you're back pedaling

>>11708865
>And now you're back pedaling
LOL how is that backpedaling? Where did I say the trend wasn't increasing 50 years ago? You don't know what circular reasoning is, you don't know what backpedaling is, and you can't even understand simple sentences. Has it ever occurred to you that you aren't smart enough to be discussing scientific matters?

>>11708889
LOL You can't discern the last 50 years without referencing itself.

>>11708896
What does that even mean? Of course if I tell you about something then I am referencing that thing. Circular reasoning is an argument where the conclusion depends on itself. What conclusion have I made that depends on itself?

>>11708900
It's cute how you keep avoiding where the data came from.

>>11709025
It's cute how you keep deflecting from your utter failure to form a coherent argument.

>>11702870
Why would someone tell lies on the internet?

>>11704351

But are the conclusions that people make from this data actually valid? How are we sure that this is an inevitable march towards climate doomsday and not regular climate fluctuations?

This planet used to have no ice caps or glaciers at all, you know that right? It was like that for millions of years. If anything we've been on a warming tangent from the ice age.

Exxon believed climate change is real and actively worked to conceal this.

>>11709033
>How are we sure that this is an inevitable march towards climate doomsday and not regular climate fluctuations?
We know it's not natural because we can directly observe the warming effect of our CO2 emissions via radiative spectroscopy. We can also see that for the past million years the climate has been in a natural cycle between glacial and interglacial periods caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity. The last interglacial warming occurred 10000 years ago, so according to this natural cycle we should be slowly cooling. Instead we are warming on top of what should be the temperature peak, and at an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. So there is nothing "natural" about current warming.

>This planet used to have no ice caps or glaciers at all, you know that right?
It also used to have no humans.

>It was like that for millions of years. If anything we've been on a warming tangent from the ice age.
We're still in an ice age. Perhaps you mean glacial period? That ended 10000 years ago. This warming has nothing to do with it.

>>11709028
If you knew you wouldn't refer the 50 years to itself e.g. circular logic

>>11709039
How did Exxon conceal global temperatures?

>>11709057
If you knew this was circular logic you would tell me what conclusion I made that depends on itself. You can't, just like you can't explain what I "backpedaled" on, and can't even explain the logical implications of an argument properly.

>>11709061
They paid off Republicans to say stupid shit.

>>11709061
they fund research that sets out to prove that climate change isn't real or isn't a big deal.

It looks like the warming pattern of 1900-now tracks global population growth as well, which is expected to stagnate and top off in the coming 30 years, which would potentially slow or halt the warming effect as well?

To that end, who gives a fuck if the world gets 1-3 C warmer? Pre-modern humans cut a living in the Sahara and the North Pole, you don't think we're fine with modern tech?

>>11709102
LOL, I'm sure we could survive many horrible things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't avoid them.

>>11709113

I'm afraid I'm not personally willing to overthrow my socioeconomic system to.... "POSSIBLY"... do something about this highly complicated macro trend. I mean, it's not like there isn't a large lobby of opportunists who are trying to capitalize on the hysteria, just like the other anons are complaining about the oil lobby trying to totally silence the topic.

I'm not really against an eventual drift towards renewables, and nuclear, but I don't really want socialism. Lol

>>11709119
Why are you pretending to care about the economy if you want to subject it to unmitigated global warming? You can complain about lobbyists all you want but the science speaks for itself. Ignore it at your own peril.

>>11709068
If there is are an upward trend prior to 1960 and you have no other explanation as to why that is, then you're referencing that so called '50 years' to itself.

It can't be because the data speaks for itself.

You can't argue that the data sets from 19th century are as plentiful as the 20th century. That would really be showing your naivete on the matter.

And since you're already arguing that those last 50 years we're the FASTEST you're also implying an upward trend in the previous years, especially in 50 year intervals--which you repeatedly avoided to explain why.
(Protip: Saying because the last 50 were the fastest is still self-referencing)

So you can't argue that a wider set of data introduce has the possibility of pulling the average down, meaning that any further breakdown of those particular 50 years must show continuity of that trend in previous intervals.

Don't bother with the greentext, kiddo. Not going to waste anymore time on a faker. Go ahead and have the last word.

>>11703143
The irony of cherry picking

>>11709119
>I'm afraid I'm not personally willing to overthrow my socioeconomic system to.... "POSSIBLY"... do something about this highly complicated macro trend.
What the fuck does any of that mean?
The impact of ignoring climate change is going to be larger than that of preventing climate change. If you count migrating away from fossil fuels as "overthrowing the socioeconomic system" (??), then how the fuck are you fine with the far more severe impacts from doing nothing?

>I'm not really against an eventual drift towards renewables, and nuclear, but I don't really want socialism. Lol
This is your brain on political propaganda.

>>11709156
>If there is are an upward trend prior to 1960 and you have no other explanation as to why that is, then you're referencing that so called '50 years' to itself.
Doesn't follow. The explanation for why there is a warming trend prior to 1960 is increasing CO2, same as the explanation. Of why there is a warning trend after 1960. Doesn't mean it's the same rate of warming. You can't even explain what problem you have with pointing out the 50 year warming trend, you're just complaining to complain.

>You can't argue that the data sets from 19th century are as plentiful as the 20th century.
I never did. So why are you bringing it up? Can you make an actual coherent argument?

>And since you're already arguing that those last 50 years we're the FASTEST you're also implying an upward trend in the previous years, especially in 50 year intervals--which you repeatedly avoided to explain why.
You never asked.

>So you can't argue that a wider set of data introduce has the possibility of pulling the average down,
You're confusing the rate with temperature. If past samples had a bias towards lower rates then more sampling would produce a faster rate. If past samples had a bias towards higher rates then more sampling would produce a lower rate. The actual rate being a warming rate doesn't stop either from occurring. In reality, the data coverage has been robust since the mid 1800s.

>Don't bother with the greentext, kiddo. Not going to waste anymore time on a faker.
Nice projection.

>>11709164
The cowardice of vague posts.

>>11708360
>"all the research (that we didn't ban, shame, defund and deplatform out of existence) agrees"

>>11709235
>The conspiracy definitely exists!
>The lack of evidence for a conspiracy is part of the conspiracy!

>>11709273
you don't think there's a bias?
climate "deniers" have lost their jobs for presenting the "wrong" evidence

>>11708569

Who are they comparing the Christians to? Probably to people who's christian faith was cruelly crushed by con-artist televangelists, right wing extremists, and pedophile priests.

Climate change is real and we are fucking the planet up big time, thats a fact and you're a retard if you even try to challenge this, there's evidence everywhere.

The real redpill is it's fucking inevitable, fossils are the only cost effective shit to run a civilization on a scale like ours. If they are not replaced in time they will eventually run out. If we don't have fusion by that time the technological and industrial bases will contract and we will become a low tech society FOREVER. It seems pretty much inevitable to me.

>>11709377
>you don't think there's a bias?
Yes: novelty and outside opinions tend to get disproportionately more attention, as people tend to err in favor of "both sides"-style presentations.

>climate "deniers" have lost their jobs for presenting the "wrong" evidence
No, they've lost their jobs for taking money under the table. I'm not aware of any case where a scientist lost their job simply for disagreeing about climate change.

>>11709235
>>11709273
You guys are pretty good at this. Very keky

>>11708088
There was literally a "scientific consensus" on Aether. Scientific consensus doesn't mean shit and every good scientist knows this.

>>11709402
sounds more like the peak oil theory than climate change
I reckon the former is more plausible 2bh

>>11709443
I just didn't address climate change and the claims that dredging up all that shit and burning it is perfectly safe for life on earth. Peak oil is hardly a theory considering that shit is finite. It's going to end someday. There's about 100 years of uranium left, probably the same with oil and coal. After that, without alternative you cannot maintain technology anymore.

And if that happens it's OVER for all time and people will never match the greatness of 2020 tier civilization again. There will be none of this Kardashev crap just a slow regress to a literal new dark age. And that could start happening in the next century already.

>>11709402
we can take bicycle powered ships to other planets in search of more resources

>>11708680
>what is context
A can of oil has been deposited outside your door.

>>11709190
You're a fountain of hypocrisy

>>11708660
Try to make an American city 'carfree'.

>>11709412
>There was literally a "scientific consensus" on Aether.
Source?

>Scientific consensus doesn't mean shit and every good scientist knows this.
It seems like you don't understand what a scientific consensus is.

>>11708680
Misrepresenting what people said does not make the misrepresentations true ever.

>>11709988
How?

>>11710002
Why?

>>11710135
life quality

>>11709412
Aether is correct, you actually trust those dumb scientists? The consensus against Aether is meaningless.

>>11710142
Why do cars reduce life quality?

>>11710150
>Why do cars reduce life quality?

>>11710164
Why do cars quality of life?

Can't wait for the little ice age to kick some ass
2035 is around the corner

>>11710502
Can't wait for you tards to get BTFO again.

>>11704202
>taxing the middle class out of existence makes a better a world

>>11708347
>That's not circular reasoning
kek how are you even breathing right now

>>11710735
>implying its all about taxes

>>11710502
where did you get that information?

>>11710769
What conclusion is dependent on itself?

>>11710929
last 50 years

>>11710531
after people wasted another 15 years?

>>11710933
That's not a conclusion.

>>11711002
What are you babbling about?

>>11704202
>>11708569
Both of these are correct and based.

t. Christian eco gang.

Global Warming is the great filter.

Climate change is real and is good for cold climates.

>>11712393
Maybe the first .5 C warming was good for cold places, but now it's a net detriment.

>>11712393
>BUT
>POLISH
>APPLES

>>11710735
Brainlet post. Neoliberal economics is strangling the middle and working classes as is.

>>11709188
Damn, you're really this dumb!

>>11712690
Not an argument, you lose.

>>11702870

CO2 causes air to heat quicker. You can prove this using two atmosphere filled jars and a heat lamp

Listen, I'll make a deal. I'll entertain your climate change hysteria if you accept race realism.

>>11713816
>Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism or "race realism," is a pseudoscientific belief
I'm running a business here, I can't pay retail prices.

Meanwhile

>>11714228
Meanwhile

The thing is, human brains are not well wired for processing timescales that are much larger than their lifespan. Two hundred years is not a long time, but an eternity to a human. We expect to see changes happen right now and without consideration of future generations. And most, as if its human nature, are adverse to change. No one wants to commit to change. Why would they? The human lifespan is too short to see drastic changes. What I don't know, won't hurt me, right? Fuck everyone that isn't me, right? The world revolves around me, right?

>>11714296
DUDE

>>11714377
WEED

>>11714425
LMAO

>>11714209

>Empirical observation and logic are now pseudoscience

Interesting. Well so is the presupposition that a 2 degree increase in global temperatures will result in any meaningful change or catastrophe. Your move

>>11714581
>>Empirical observation and logic are now pseudoscience
Flat Earthers think they have empirical observation and logic too.

>>11709061
They've known about it since the 80's and even made a pretty decent model projections of CO2 and temperature changes.
>>11709033
>This planet used to have no ice caps or glaciers at all, you know that right?
That was 65+My ago and the planet had a completely different oceanic and continental configuration, so it's irrelevant to our current situation. Plus the ecosystem back then developed under those conditions. Our current ecosystem is one of a cooler world, as it has been cooling progressively for millions of years.

https://www.temperaturerecord.org/

>>11714581
Where do you see presupposition?

>>11703165
>consensus
Why is this meme still repeated over and over? Ad populum and ad verecundiam are fallacies, why do people in sciences still fail at basic logic?

>>11714727

Many assume that, just because we can observe the climate is marginally warming that 1. We can actually avoid or change the course of it or that 2. It's going to actually register in a global catastrophe or anything that warrants some of the drastic action people want to take to "avoid" (possibly) it.

>>11714747
This isn't argument ad populum or ad verecundiam, because it isn't an argument at all. It is simply an observation. The point is not that climate change is real _because_ many scientists believe in it. It is that since climate change has been tested so well and is understood by this point, many scientists believe in it.

>>11714755
>Many assume that, just because we can observe the climate is marginally warming
How exactly is the fastest warming the Earth has seen in at least a million years "marginal?"

>1. We can actually avoid or change the course of it
The amount of warming has nothing to do with that. Human CO2 emissions are the main cause and can be reversed.

>It's going to actually register in a global catastrophe or anything that warrants some of the drastic action people want to take to "avoid" (possibly) it.
I don't think anyone assumes that. It's what scientists have determined from their understanding of the climate and Earth's ecosystems. It just seems like you are making up assumptions that don't exist because you have no argument against the science.

>>11702870
>Climate change isn't real.
It kinda is but isnt man made

>>11708670
That's what the leftists claim, but I personally find most leftists don't give a fuck about the climate, they just want to use it to draw people to their party and then use it to push their purely leftist agenda. In reality, a lot of western nations are overpopulated (As a Dutchman I sadly have personal experience with this), and the last thing we'd want to be doing is importing more people. A part of the solution is going to mean sacrificing a lot of modern comforts, but we have to do it for our children, so I would say more emphasis has to be placed on the family and the old idea of continuous life passed on through generations. We need to get rid of modern individualist hedonism so people actually see a reason to prevent something that will mainly affect their offspring rather than themselves.

oh no La Nina is starting again

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4

warmists BTFO

>>11702870
Fucking retarded OP, here is the REAL graph.

>>11717462
Wrong.

https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/dturner/public_html/metr5970/2015_nature.feldman_AERI_obs_CO2_forcing_over_last_decade.pdf

>>11717907
Reminds me of this gem.

>>11703143
>160 years
>cherrypicking long term climate change

>>11718016
How is it cherrypicking?

I also find it funny that the OP has squashed the y axis so much that if there was a positive trend one would not be able to see it. And lo and behold that's exactly what happened.

>>11718149

why dont you multiply the y-axis by 20, it will look even more dramatic

>>11703143

why dont you multiply the y-axis by 1000, it will look even more dramatic

>>11718179
4 degrees is 4 degrees. You got BTFO.

>>11717767
>he thinks La Nina/El Nino have any effect on the long term trend

>>11703143

why dont you divide the y-axis by 1000, it will look even more dramatic

>>11718191
>>11718228
Why don't you livestream yourself deepthroating a shotgun? That'd be even more dramatic, you post-deleting faggot.

>>11718249

oh look after 200 years, temperature increased by 1 degree, who cares.

>>11718343
The climate has nothing to do with this.

>>11718343
Anyone who isn't retarded.

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY ARE VALID
In /sci/, because you are all fucking retards (I am one as well), and not one in hundred of you has studied the relevant disciplines deeply enough as to make their opinions more worthwhile than the consensus.
No, the one textbook you read on the subject doesn't count. Neither does the MOOC you watched while eating pizza. People spend 10 years studying this. Shut the fuck up, and stop pretending you can challenge top scientists with your dumb fuck opinions.
>inb4 consensus is a meme
The majority opinion (of experts, not the entire population) has been shown again and again to outperform even the most intelligent individuals.

Climate change is real
The question falls to how much impact are the human species having on it. IMO all weve done is knocked down a couple dominos that were already in line to fall.
Tldr: our impact has been minute on the grandeur scale of the earth.

>>11702870
based

>>11718997
>APPEALS TO AUTHORITY ARE VALID
What authority do you have? Why should I believe your claims when you don't have any authority?

>>11713816
>I'll listen to the truth if you listen to my lies
Yeah, no, that's DEFINITELY not how science works. You can't just selectively ignore contradictory information in order to reach a conclusion; that's confirmation bias. Find a peer-reviewed study that actually acknowledges the existence of 'biological races', or convincing evidence for such that isn't just 'hurrr muh haplotypes and phenotypes'.

>>11702897
>global temperature
is this even meaningful?

>>11719102
Demonstrably false. According to studies of Milankovitch cycles, we SHOULD be in a cycle of cooling, yet we're warming up and breaking heat records, completely unlike climate changes many millennias ago caused by changes in orbit.

>>11714747
Why are YOU using 'ad populum' in reverse just to be contrarian? Scientists aren't agreeing with each other just because, they're agreeing because their results are in accord. What would YOU consider to be 'good science' if you're not going to trust the scientific method itself?

>>11719160
You shouldn't.
In fact, you should quit /sci/ for this exact reason.

>>11719325
>In fact, you should quit /sci/ for this exact reason.
Why should I follow your suggestion when you still haven't established your authority?

>>11719345
I HAVE MANY CITATIONS AND BIG H INDEX, YOU STUPID FAGGOT. KNEEL, SLAVE.
Something something god something something stone

>Actually arguing with climate change deniers
Is there a bigger waste of ones time and energy?
You would legitimately and unironically have a more civil and reasonable argument with flat earthers.

>>11719160
You do realise that applies to you too, right? Would you try presenting the Flat Earth hypothesis to an actual astrophysicist?

>>11719425
>I HAVE MANY CITATIONS AND BIG H INDEX
Why should I believe this claim when you still haven't established your authority?

>>11719436
I'm not the one claiming that people should defer to authority. I am questioning an anon who makes that claim by applying the standard proposed in his claim to his claim.

>>11719434
Climate deniers are a worse breed because they have far more vested interests in 'disproving' the theory. They get to maintain their destructive lifestyles and delusions of infinite growth, and rake in all the benefits from Big Petroleum (especially the researchers directly funded by them). Even if they live long enough to see the results of their shortsightedness, they'll just shrug and say 'Nothing we could've done!' to soothe their consciences.

>>11719479
That anon can easily cite expert opinion and well-verified studies to support his point, although he's not an expert himself. What's supporting YOUR argument?

>>11719479
>Why should I believe this claim when you still haven't established your authority?
Why should I believe this question when you still haven't established your authority?
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. You think you can get away with saying shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. You didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>11719515
>That anon can easily cite expert opinion and well-verified studies to support his point, although he's not an expert himself.
He's not done so, although I've provided ample opportunity for him to.
>What's supporting YOUR argument?
Which argument would that be?

>>11719528
The only thing Navy SEALs are authorities on is self-sucking.

>>11719544

>>11719581
Is that the meme from which you derive your authority?

>>11719284
Because Milutin is wrong. His theory only supports a slow/steady shift in climate of the northern hemisphere thus affecting the southern hemisphere via ocean currents. Explain the drastic changes of climate we know (+/- 18 degrees of global average)

https://www.iceagenow.info/man-made-warming-demolished-in-500-words/

https://youtu.be/PvAdst1CYTs?t=103

>>11718997
The consensus is a conspiracy among climatologists to commit scientific fraud, because of carbon taxes or whatever. Haven't you heard?

>>11719267
Yes. It represents the amount of energy in Earth's atmosphere.

yfw Margaret Thatcher started the global warming hoax:

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

>>11720631
>https://www.iceagenow.info/man-made-warming-demolished-in-500-words/
That reads like a schizo manifesto.

But I gotta say, calling "CO2" innocent to be the most bullshit thing I have read in a long time. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is literally a basic science experiment that has been quantified and calculated from first principles by this point. Pretending it doesn't do anything is retarded.

>>11721463
>But I gotta say, calling "CO2" innocent to be the most bullshit thing I have read in a long time.
It's why I think there needs to be a bigger focus on ocean acidification instead of purely climate change. It's a far simpler process establishing CO2 as pollution with harmful effects now.

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>11721607
I agree on that one too, although it shouldn't be a simpler process as we literally have the first order physics of CO2 trapping heat in our atmosphere figured out that can be replicated in someones garage if need be.

But yeah, ocean acidification is fucked. We are going to lose our reefs and our crustaceans en masse. Not even mentioning the phytoplankton that make the majority of our oxygen who will all die when their calcium carbonate shells dissolve from the carbonic acid concentration.

>>11718016
>160 years
>long term
ahsuahayahsuuahushauhsuhahhshahauhuahuahuahua

>>11719636
>His theory only supports a slow/steady shift in climate of the northern hemisphere thus affecting the southern hemisphere via ocean currents.
Yes, which is the climate of the past million years or so.

>Explain the drastic changes of climate we know (+/- 18 degrees of global average)
LOL when was that? Hundreds of millions of years ago? How long did such a change take? 100 million years? Yeah that's real fast. Such changes are primarily a result of continental drift changing the flow water around the poles. It doesn't make Milankovich wrong, they're two completely different phenomena.

>>11702883
Nice meme grandpa

>>11724227
>Yes, which is the climate of the past million years or so.
Ahh so you can agree the climate changes on its own. Good.
>LOL when was that? Hundreds of millions of years ago? How long did such a change take? 100 million years
Damnit i thought for once i met an anon that wasnt just larping about knowing anything. What is the pleistocene epoch for 500 alex.

>>11702870
Climate change is real but liberals who think Europe or America can do anything to stop it are peak hubris. Have you seen what it's like in an actually polluted country?

>>11720631
>Earth’s average surface temperature and man’s CO2 emissions have both risen since 1850, so CO2 must have caused the warming
Strawman argument. The greenhouse effect is causative, not correlative.

>This mismatch is simply due to the oceanic time-lag, currently about 60 years.
This doesn't explain anything. Solar forcing was flat 60 years ago yet warming is faster than ever. The lag caused by ocean heat uptake is already taken into account by climate models: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327

>Sea level (SL) for the last few thousand years varied less than 25cm, so the 30cm SL rise since 1850 proves abnormal warming by CO2
An even more ridiculous strawman. Who said this?

>That’s it. That’s all they have. Be surprised.
LOL, so not only did he make up strawmen, he claims those fake arguments are all that exist. He utterly fails to mention the greenhouse effect which is the most important part of the argument he claims to have completely described. Pathetic.

>>11724489

whatever, there is a finite amount of fossil fuel on earth, so even if the warming is caused by burning fossil fuel, it will not increase with out limit. Retards seem to believe the warming will accelerate until the earth becomes a star.

>>11724406
>Ahh so you can agree the climate changes on its own.
Not on its own, everything has a cause.

>What is the pleistocene epoch for 500 alex.
There were no 18 degree temperature swings in the Pleistocene.

>>11724585
Another idiotic strawman. Wow, you're really good at this. Burning all of the fossil fuel will still have catastrophic affects.

>>11724585
The worry is that it will trigger run away processes that can't be reverted. Permafrost releasing methane, the artic no long reflecting light, phytoplankton CO2 scrubbing disappearing due to acidification, etc.

We have a finite amount of fossil fuel but if we burn it all we are still fucked up a creek without a paddle. There is a fear that we will turn into Venus where we have enough greenhouse gases in our upper atmosphere that we will never be able to bleed heat faster then we get it. Humans will survive but we will end up nuking our biosphere which, despite what many people thing, drive all the major nutrient cycles that keep us alive.

>>11724819
50% of the annual CO2 emissions will stay for hundred of years, 20% of annual CO2 emissions will stay for thousands of years in the atmosphere.

Shit is here to stay.

>long term
>can't predict Florida weather a day in advance to launch a rocket

lmao

>>11708080
Imagine being this much of a total fucking retard. Imagine thinking consensus isn't valuable when it comes to medical treatment and the like.

>>11725635
you don't understand at all how Las Vegas turns a profit, do you sweetie?

>>11710146
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>11710735
>big Pharma isn't a form of tax
hurrr durrr

>>11714715
Big oil knew exactly what it was doing.
https://youtu.be/FGVW9vJ773k

>>11718193
What is the argument here? The difference between the global temperature being 1.5C and 2C is the difference between 14% of the world population getting 2007 EU heat waves every five years and 37% of them getting it. Did you think a four degree increase was supposed to be small?

>>11718765
>inb4 cherrypicking because the earth is billions of years old
>inb4 deniers start pointing out the few precedents across the billion years graph without knowing the time they're pointing to indicate disastrous events

>>11708230
>Only 500 years ago we thought the earth was flat
bait

>>11708561
You gave him an example where you claimed 500 years ago scientists thought the world was flat, which was 1) wrong, we were already estimating the circumference of the earth within a 3% margin of error over two thousand years ago with Eratosthenes and 2) would go against your own point even if it were true, because you're implying a linear inheritance of scientific thought such that pre-instutionalization of the scientific method is comparable with its post, which just shows that you understood the fields of neither period.

>>11709119
>millions of refugees won't affect my socioeconomic system

>>11712393
Climate change doesn't mean the cold places that matter in terms of human population are getting warmer.

>>11713816
I believe you accidentally stumbled onto the science board, the humanities board is two blocks down.

>>11719160
Because he's not telling you to believe the claim based on his authority but that of an aggregate of experts on the subject who make the same claim. The question you would be asking if you had basic reading comprehension would be why studying relevant disciplines (ie. being an expert) gives someone authority, which you didn't either because you couldn't understand his post or because you know the question would make you look retarded.

>>11724995
So you're saying it'll only take thousands of years to revert climate change? Yawn, the earth is billions of years old. What a nothingburger.

>>11726040
You're replying to the wrong person.

>>11702870

Problem w climate change models is averaging

1. Average temperature is a spurious parameter
2. The spatial resolution of sensors (data) requires filling in the blanks
3. Filling in the blanks allows for data gerrymandering
4. Everyone understands gerrymandering with an election; change the boundaries, change the average

The recent magnetic anomalies should also be concerning to anyone in the field

Every person that expends a single calorie for or against climate change should be strung up and shot.
Theres never been a more wasteful, worthless, negative nonsense idea in the time since the universe began.

Simple question to everyone, do you believe humans exist independent of the environment? Yes or No?

>>11726439
No.
But ignoring minor influences is the basis of statistics.

Uhm, climatechangetards???

>>11702897
Do you know what "change" means? This graph literally shows exponential growth of global temperature.

>>11726424
/thread
/pol/ just loves shitting up every board

Why are pseudo science and retards who can't even work with proper data and sources allowed on /sci/?
Not only cherry-pick data to suit your claims, you use shit sources but also can't even read data you are fucking posting.

>>11725635
You realize how stupid your post is, right?

>>11726515
1. The jannies are shit and don't enforce anything.
2. Cancerous retards from the most horrible boards try to take over small, slow ones. /v/, /pol/, /tv/, you name it. They wander into boards not meant for low-effort shitposting and terraform them. /lit/ is even worse

>>11702870
Only thing I will say, at least in my state, is we stopped getting snow and strong storms as often but temperatures haven't changed. Used to be we'd get 10" of snow or more, now we get maybe 6" if we're lucky. Heavy rains all the time, but no massive thunderstorms.

>>11726424
i thought that too but now we can debate covid instead

>>11726113
(This conversation has nothing at all to do with climate change, by the way.)

>>11704202
Surprise retard, none of those goals can be achieved with current renewable sources. It's a fine goal to work on but it's not feasible to go 100% green on mainly solar and wind.

>>11710735
>taxing the middle class out of existence
>not using tax and dividend where middle/lower class profits while society as a whole emits less co2

>>11726498
I do love graphs without labeled axes and no source for the data telling me exactly how the world works. Especially when it's got ugly red lines slapped on top of it for arbitrary length scales that were clearly made as an afterthought to confirm the conclusions made before the graph was even looked at.

Like you could literally just draw a straight line from 1900 and 1980 and it would probably have a better fit then the three separate lines you slapped on there.

4/10 bait, made me respond at least.

>>11726374
>1. Average temperature is a spurious parameter
Because?

>2. The spatial resolution of sensors (data) requires filling in the blanks
Spatual coverage is high enough that this isn't a problem. See >>11709188

>3. Filling in the blanks allows for data gerrymandering
Meaning what?

>4. Everyone understands gerrymandering with an election; change the boundaries, change the average
What boundaries?

>>11726424
OK, schizo.

>>11727023

temperature is different at every different location, so their average might not mean very much

>>11726498
Flat midcentury temperatures were caused by aerosol pollution.

>>11726728
Strawman argument. What about nuclear?

>>11726082

Socialism will be even worse.

>>11727296
>temperature is different at every different location, so their average might not mean very much
Doesn't follow. Global temperature is essentially how much energy enters Earth's atmosphere - how much energy leaves it. The distribution of energy is irrelevant.

>>11727673
>regulating greenhouse gas emissions is socialism
OK I guess we are already in socialism.

>>11727023

1. Intensive properties are not additive.

2. What you're actually saying ~ resolution is high enough to fill in blanks and fit a model. What's the volume of our planet system, how many sensors are out there? How many cubic miles/sensor?

3. Meaning you can pick the temperature gradient between two sensors. Different gradients give different averages.

4. Boundaries between sensors recording temperature, aka the county lines

>>11727023

1. Intensive properties are not additive

2. What you're actually saying ~ resolution is high enough to fill in blanks and fit a model. What's the volume of our planet system, how many sensors are out there? How many cubic miles/sensor?

3. Meaning you can pick the temperature gradient between two sensors. Different gradients give different averages.

4. Boundaries between sensors recording temperature, aka the county lines

>>11727679

Global temperature is not how much energy enters minus leaves.

The distribution of energy is absolutely relevant.

You're not a scientist.

>>11703002

You sound like a 15 year old

>>11728996
Um actually for the record you can't hear his/her/xir voice, so you don't know how old they "sound." And second, you write like you're 16. All in all, gonna give you a big yikes, sweetie. Cringe.

>>11702870
Yes it is.

>>11728896
>1. Intensive properties are not additive.
No one is saying you should add temperatures. It's their average that's being taken. Since temperature is independent of the size of the area, the temperature of one area is the spatial average of the areas inside it. Unlike for example the mass of an object, which is the sum of the masses inside it. And thanks for admitting global temperature makes sense.

>>11728896
>2. What you're actually saying ~ resolution is high enough to fill in blanks and fit a model. What's the volume of our planet system, how many sensors are out there? How many cubic miles/sensor?
No that's nonsense. This is like saying that sampling a population is filling in blanks. You don't need to measure the entire population to get a narrow range in which a parameter of the population lies. If you're going to deny basic statistics then don't adhere to any scientific facts.

>3. Meaning you can pick the temperature gradient between two sensors. Different gradients give different averages.
Who is picking temperature gradients? Gerrymandering is arbitrary drawing of boundaries in order to reach a specific result. So are you saying scientists are arbitrarily making up temperatures between sensors in order to get warming? They're not. Averaging isn't arbitrary and isn't making up temperatures.

>4. Boundaries between sensors recording temperature, aka the county lines
Sensor measurements are average across uniform areas, there aren't arbitrary boundaries between sensors.

>>11728907
>Global temperature is not how much energy enters minus leaves.
"Temperature is a physical property of matter that quantitatively expresses hot and cold. It is the manifestation of thermal energy, present in all matter, which is the source of the occurrence of heat, a flow of energy, when a body is in contact with another that is colder."

Please explain thermodynamically how global temperature can increase without more energy entering the atmosphere than leaving it.

>The distribution of energy is absolutely relevant.
How?

>You're not a scientist.
LOL I am. Not that I'd need to be to disprove your ridiculous claims.

>>11729816

Wow. Non additive properties cannot be simply averaged.

>>11729845

Consider a distribution of temperatures from high to low across an arbitrary area

Now take one temperature measurement in the middle of said area

Now realize you're a fucking clown that shouldn't comment on science or math

>>11729845

You're being explicitly told that the climate models use algorithms to fill in blanks between sensors. Lo siento, mejo.

>>11729869

Ummmm entropy? Lol saying distribution of energy doesn't matter is full retard.

>>11729816

If temperature was constant and at equilibrium, that would be correct. Except it's not constant or at equilibrium. Bon appetit.

>>11730016
>Wow. Non additive properties cannot be simply averaged.
Why?

>>11730020
>Now take one temperature measurement in the middle of said area
That's called a sample. As you take more samples and average them, the average approaches the temperature of the area. What is your point?

>>11730025
>You're being explicitly told that the climate models use algorithms to fill in blanks between sensors. Lo siento, mejo.
You've failed to show the algorithms are arbitrary and that spatial coverage is insufficient.

>>11730028
>Ummmm entropy?
Entropy of what? How does entropy cause temperature to increase?

>Lol saying distribution of energy doesn't matter is full retard.
Not giving any reason for how it matters is full retard.

>>11730053
>If temperature was constant and at equilibrium, that would be correct.
Why?

>>11730360

1. Physics? What does the average human body temperature of everyone in California mean, physically?

2. So you seem to appreciate that more samples increases accuracy, but won't acknowledge why or what that means regarding spatial averaging.

3. See 2

"However, observations of air temperature are typically only available from a limited number of weather stations distributed mainly in developed countries, which in turn may often report time series with missing values. As a consequence, the record of air temperature observations is patchy in both space and time"

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018246

4. Entropy doesn't cause temperature to increase, it causes spatial deviations from your generalized statement that temperature is the flux of energy, which it isn't.

4. Fill a bathtub halfway with cold water, then switch to hot water. How long does it take to reach equilibrium? Now measure temperature at various places at various times. What's the temperature of the water?

I sincerely hope you take time to digest these facts. Or you could conveniently assume I'm a shill. One is faster, but the other will be more rewarding.

>>11730360

Another useful thought experiment is as follows

Consider two points at two different known temperatures separated by some distance. Does the temperature increase or decrease between those points? By how much? Where is the max/min? How long does that distribution exist?

>oceana isn't sinking

>>11730475
>1. Physics? What does the average human body temperature of everyone in California mean, physically?
There is an average human body temperature of 98.6 F. If the average in California is significantly higher than this indicates a significant amount of people in California have fevers. This isn't even analogous to what we're discussing since bodies don't make up one area, but it still makes sense. I don't understand why you think physics has any problem taking the average of temperatures. Can you make an actual argument instead of just saying it can't?

>2. So you seem to appreciate that more samples increases accuracy, but won't acknowledge why or what that means regarding spatial averaging.
I said from the start that the spatial coverage is sufficient to get a representative average. I showed you the uncertainty intervals. Please explain why you think it's not sufficient.

>3. See 2
2 does not show how the algorithms are arbitrary or how the spacial coverage is insufficient.

>https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018246
Did you actually check to see if their global averages are different from the temperature station record? Because the satellite record is practically the same. Why do you think multiple methods showing the same result throws doubt on one method?

>4. Entropy doesn't cause temperature to increase, it causes spatial deviations from your generalized statement that temperature is the flux of energy, which it isn't.
What spacial deviations? Either energy is in the atmosphere or it isn't. If entropy doesn't cause temperature to increase then it fails to explain how global temperature can increase without energy flux increasing. You're still being very vague, which tells me you have no clue what you're talking about.

>Now measure temperature at various places at various times. What's the temperature of the water?
It is whatever you measured it is at a certain time. What is your point?

The kioto protocol was approved in 1998.
It's been 22 years of lies and every body that's not simping for their school teacher admits it now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BclyVYo0Tc

EL NINO!!
LA NINA
Pacific and Atlantic Ocean Oscilation!!
Many factors other than CO2 and the hotest years on the record (not that the record means anything) coincide without exception with these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BclyVYo0Tc

>>11730503
Again what is your point? I've already given you uncertainty ranges while you simply assume the uncertainty is too large for the sampling to work. There is no actual substance in your posts, just vague insinuations and denial.

>>11730668
You didn't give uncertaty ranges dude.
Every year the sd of the termometers is over 2 C.
The standard deviation of 1 year is bigger than ALL of measured global warming
There is no theory here. It is all a scam. And we know it.

>>11730645

1. The average temp of all ca residents is not anyone's temperature. You can't give everyone medication bc the average increases.

You don't get to debate the mathematics of averaging intrinsic properties, sorry. It's firmly established by real physicists

2. You're saying the uncertainty calculated using the available sensors AND assumptions between said sensors fits with the models being used to fill said gaps. Circular.

3. How do you think they fill in the gaps? Are you studying the cmip papers or just reading articles about climate science?

4. Dissipative structures are generated by consuming energy and lead to spatial deviations. Ipso facto you can't simply use energy flux to calculate temperature over a sphere with sources and sinks, bc of spatial deviations.

5. Do you not understand that the temperature measured at two points is different (and changing) until at equilibrium? That means you'll get a different result, everywhere, and averaging those numbers will always give you a spurious result, until EQUILIBRIUM lol

>>11730864
Not that guy but
1. That's why you look at systematic problems that could lead to an average rise in temperature among residents. Things like public health problems, or maybe some sort of pandemic like COVID? It can be used as an indicator of a general problem.
2. Is this gonna be another one of those, "we don't have a missing link, oh well you found one, but we don't have the missing link between that and, oh well, we don't have the missing li-"?

3. idk not gonna bother reading through this mess of a thread

4. Cool, except for the fact that we have a near equilibrium position with solar energy on a biosphere level (perhaps even a declining one) and our methods of building sinks involve the use of already stored energy sources such as fossil fuels. We could make an argument about solar, but we barely use any of that energy.

5. If I measure temperature of a billion dots in a glass of water, I will get a billion different results if I have an arbitrary number of significant figures. If I average over that whole area I can find what the value is for the standard particle in solution, even if it is only local perturbations they are not at equilibrium. As long as I do it properly I can derive useful information about the entire system. It is not a spurious result. If I drop a heated ball into the glass and measure those same particles, generate a particle distribution function, and then calculate energy densities I can determine what the equilibrium density of thermal energy of the glass of water will be from those dots. They aren't just naively dividing by the number of samples they have.

I bet you don't know shit about wetlab work or how to gather data.

>>11730921

Silly me, just a professional physical chemist with a decade in r&d.

Let us know when you graduate.

>>11730666
Those all have no long term trend. It's not simply record temperatures you have to explain, it's the long term warming trend. What radiative forcing is causing it?

>>11726120

It's only a few decades of unmitigated climate change until the world's food and water supplies are depleted past their ability to sustain 7billion+ people

Retard

>>11731072

What exactly is going to cause this hypothetical catastrophe?

>>11730680
>You didn't give uncertaty ranges dude.
I did. >>11709188

>Every year the sd of the termometers is over 2 C.
SD as the range of temperatures at different times or SD as the range of error? Because it seems like you're conflating the two.

Of course the temperature varies greatly between day and night and over the different seasons. That doesn't affect our ability to measure averages at all.

>>11731092

You really don't appear to understand averages

>>11730864
>1. The average temp of all ca residents is not anyone's temperature.
I never said it was. So I guess you have no actual argument against anything I said.

>You don't get to debate the mathematics of averaging intrinsic properties, sorry. It's firmly established by real physicists
For this to be a debate you would have to actually make an argument or show evidence of your claim that intensive properties can't be averaged. It's not a debate, it's just you making a baseless claim that I don't have to accept.

"According to IUPAC, an intensive quantity is one whose magnitude is independent of the size of the system[1] whereas an extensive quantity is one whose magnitude is additive for subsystems.[2] This reflects the corresponding mathematical ideas of mean and measure, respectively."

Weird how intensive properties correspond to the concept of the mean but can't be averaged.

>2. You're saying the uncertainty calculated using the available sensors AND assumptions between said sensors fits with the models being used to fill said gaps. Circular.
Where did I say that?

>3. How do you think they fill in the gaps? Are you studying the cmip papers or just reading articles about climate science?
Huh? CMIP is for climate models, not temperature records. It's clear now you have no clue what you're taking about, and you're projecting your lack of knowledge into me to boot.

Here is a pretty accessible description of how Berkeley Earth's temperature averaging works: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper.pdf

I suggest you read it before making up more shit.

>4. Dissipative structures are generated by consuming energy and lead to spatial deviations. Ipso facto you can't simply use energy flux to calculate temperature over a sphere with sources and sinks, bc of spatial deviations.
Which dissipative structures increase global temperature?

>>11730864
>5. Do you not understand that the temperature measured at two points is different (and changing) until at equilibrium?
I do. What I don't understand is why you think this presents a problem. The Earth's atmosphere is not in equilibrium and never will be. The temperature will continue to rise until the atmosphere reaches a steady state. Once it does, the temperature will be significantly higher than it was before humans started releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

>That means you'll get a different result, everywhere, and averaging those numbers will always give you a spurious result
How is it a spurious result? You seem to think that any average is "spurious" if every sample is not equal to the average.

>>11702897
>a hockey stick

Perhaps you're seen this graph or something similar before. It's the Marcott Hockey Stick

Marcott shifted 2 cores (with negative values) so that they occurred just barely outside the closing period, and shifted 3 cores (with positive values) of years 1000, 690 and 510 years later than their published dates to “0 BP”. Straight-up academic malfeasance.

By fabricating new core top dates different than those expressly noted in the proxy papers themselves, a clearer case of explicit formal misconduct involving data falsification does not exist.

The Marcott et. al. reconstruction is not simply a mistake. It is an intentional distortion and a lie, fabricated in order to further an agenda.

As Roger Pielke Jr. generously wrote, after describing it as "another ugly episode for climate science":

"Arguments over data and methods are the lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct. However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC."

The take away: The only way Mann, Marcott and their ilk manage to produce Hockey Sticks are by biasing the proxy selection, altering the weights, or shifting them in time or polarity. Proxies lack the resolution and dynamics of modern temperature records, and should never be spliced together. When you see a Hockey Stick, you're being conned.

>>11731368
It's an average of averages, you stupid fucking furry piece of shit.

go back to /ic/

>>11731005
>Physical chemist doesn't know you can average temperatures.
Yeah, no.

>>11731248
What am I not understanding?

>>11731431
>Perhaps you're seen this graph or something similar before. It's the Marcott Hockey Stick
The image you're responding to has nothing to do with Marcott. It's a model and instrumental record since 1990. Marcott is a reconstruction of the past 11000 years from proxies. This alone makes your idiotic rant hilarious.

>Marcott shifted 2 cores (with negative values) so that they occurred just barely outside the closing period, and shifted 3 cores (with positive values) of years 1000, 690 and 510 years later than their published dates to “0 BP”. Straight-up academic malfeasance.
Source?

>As Roger Pielke Jr. generously wrote, after describing it as "another ugly episode for climate science"
I looked up what Pielke said about Marcott and he doesn't even mention anything about cores being related. Rather he's whining about how the end of the graph is "misrepresented" even though we already know from the instrumental record that temperature is spiking.

The take away: you're an idiot who can't read a graph and doesn't even understand the sources he's parroting.

>>11731458
>It's an average of averages
So what?

It's really pathetic how you fail with every post to make a coherent argument yet act as if you're winning one.

>>11731346

You're a troll, likely a biology undergrad.

Good luck finding a job.

>>11731658

Lol this troll thinks it's just one person explaining he's wrong about averages

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13658816.2018.1514120

Notice they explain a volume is needed to properly average intrinsic values

ie the volume/sensor is a critical value

Ipso facto how you choose the boundaries matters

Conclusion, troll can't do statistics or physics.

Qed

>>11731818
>You're a troll, likely a biology undergrad.
Nice projection.

Thanks for admitting you have no argument.

>>11732118
>Notice they explain a volume is needed to properly average intrinsic values
So intensive (not intrinsic you moron) CAN be averaged. Wow, what a shocking admittal. It's almost like you have no clue what you're taking about so you just contradict yourself.

Yes, the global temperature is a spatial average. That what I told you from the beginning.

>ie the volume/sensor is a critical value
>Ipso facto how you choose the boundaries matters
The only boundary that needs to be chosen are the bounds of the Earth's entire surface. Unfortunately, you didn't read the Berkeley Earth link I gave you which describes their Kriging process, which does not require any arbitrary boundary choices. Once again proving your ignorance of this topic.

>Conclusion, troll can't do statistics or physics.
I completely agree with this conclusion.

>>11732118
>given statistically rigorous global averaging method
>ignores it and says you don't know statistics

>>11732177

Lol intrinsic and intensive are the same. Depending on when and where you study the same things has different nomenclature, troll.

The entire earths surface as the boundary lol what a dipshit.

PS I read the Berkeley paper during after grad school in 2013 when it was published.

"The first step, cutting records at times of apparent discontinuities, is a natural extension of our
fitting procedure that determines the relative offsets between stations, expressed via bi, as an intrinsic part
of our analysis."

I hope you don't build bridges.

>>11732190

"Our goals included: A) increasing the size of the data set
used to study global climate change, B) bringing different statistical techniques to bear on the problem
with a goal of minimizing uncertainties in the resulting averages, and C) reanalyzing systematic effects,
including data selection bias, urban heat island effects, and the limitations of poor station siting."

Lol funny that rohde and curry understand the limitation, but you don't.

PSS Curry has since been ostracized for bringing up this very issue.

>>11732258

Selection bias

Urban heat islands

Limitations of poor station siting

Just email the professors and ask them. They'll tell you the same thing.

>>11732236
>Lol intrinsic and intensive are the same.
They're literally not the same, try again troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties
>Not to be confused with intensive and extensive properties.

>The entire earths surface as the boundary lol what a dipshit.
What an amazing argument. Retard.

>PS I read the Berkeley paper during after grad school in 2013 when it was published.
Sure you did. That's why you've been whining this whole time about arbitrary spacial boundaries even though you've known since 2013 that they aren't needed!

>"The first step, cutting records at times of apparent discontinuities, is a natural extension of our fitting procedure that determines the relative offsets between stations, expressed via bi, as an intrinsic part of our analysis."
And your point is?

>>11732258
>>11732263
These are indeed limitation that were overcome by statistical analysis. You just quote papers while completely ignoring and contradicting their conclusions. Berkeley Earth was developed by skeptics in order to rigorously test climate science due to theses issues and it passed with flying colors. Many deniers who said they would accept the results of Berkeley Earth's analysis predictably couldn't once it came to the conclusion they didn't like.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
http://berkeleyearth.org/

>>11732284

>Intrinsic properties (also called intensive) are those which are independent of the quantity of matter present.

Don't be embarrassed, most people are bad at science

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Chemistry/Properties_of_matter

You should take time to look into the etymology of the terms, if you're not busy studying for a biology test

>>11732284

>and your point is

They specifically list the same issues I shared with you, troll. Get a tutor.

>>11719324
they are agreeing because they are paid leftist faggots

>>11732545
These issues were supposedly why you can't get a global temperature average, yet that is exactly what they did despite them. You haven't shown these issues are not solved, because you can't.

>>11732579

It's adorable that you can share a link without understanding the actual problem they are trying to solve. Email the lead author and get back to your homework.

No more free lessons from this scientist.

>>11719284

dEMonStrAblY FAlsE hahaha

New magnetic anomaly just published, but nbd. What does the magnetic field have to do with climate anyway lol

>>11732532
Nice wrong book.

>>11732602
Yes I'm sure the lead author of the paper detailing how he averaged temperature will tell me that temperature can't be averaged. Moron.

>No more free lessons from this scientist.
Nice LARP. No scientist would be dumb enough to try to say temperature can't be averaged. No scientist would be dumb enough to say that just because selection bias, UHI, errors, etc. exist means that science can't be done. Please tell me more about your brilliant scientific work that doesn't have the possibility of error. I didn't know chemistry was pure math. Good job, you've proved beyond doubt that you aren't a scientist.

>>11732646
take your meds schizo

>>11732660
Says the guy hallucinating about being a scientist when he has no clue what he's talking about.

>>11732619
I don't know, why don't you tell me.

>>11732667

My degrees and salary suggest otherwise

Do your homework

>>11732674

Are you sincerely asking what the magnetic field has to do with climate?

>>11732693
>My degrees and salary suggest otherwise
Sure they do schizo, they certainly exist. When can we expect your next paper on how temperature can't be averaged?

>>11732695
Yes. Specifically I'm asking how magnetic effects explain global warming. Good luck.

>>11732667

That wasn't me (the scientist) telling you to take your meds. It seems at least two people think you're chemically imbalanced.

>>11732700

Hard to tell if you're the chemically imbalanced undergraduate or being genuine.

The strength of earths magnetic field affects the way high energy charged particles enter our atmosphere.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6237378/

>>11732781
This says Earth's magnetic field is correlated with detrended SAA and sea level. Pretty much the opposite of what I asked for. Earth's magnetic field is not correlated with the trend, global warming.

>>11732781
Here's cosmic ray intensity, notice any trend?

>>11710502
and so it begins:

https://electroverse.net/norway-just-suffered-its-snowiest-winter-since-1958/

>>11732901
>electroverse
>>>/x/

>>11732868

God help you

>>11732901

Same with Denver

>>11732911
Is that all you have? Deniertards are truly pathetic.

>>11732903
sources are cited

SWE (Snow Water Equivalent) chart is here:

https://www.ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current

>>11732899

Fluctuation with drift

40 years isn't very long

Pole reversal cycle is ~35k years with the dipole strength decreasing from a max ~400 years ago

>>11732922

I'm sad for you

>>11732925
It was still one of the warmest winters on record.

>>11732940
>Fluctuation with drift
What do you mean?

>40 years isn't very long
You proposed that the mechanism of effect is from cosmic rays. Please explain how cosmic rays would have such a lagged effect.

You also fail to realize or are simply ignoring that the solar magnetic field is vastly more important for cosmic ray flux than Earth's magnetic field.

Basically you have a weak, cherrypicked correlation that doesn't explain anything.

>>11732947
Good.

>>11718220
effects of a cold Pacific will extend for several years; it covers 1/3rd of the Earth surface, so it's great news

more ENSO links in addition to >>11717767

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/plume.html

https://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/pac/nino34.php

https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/department/enso-blog

>>11733012
Several years is not a long term trend.

>>11708569
except literally nothing in that picture is true. Are religious people actually stupid enough to believe that when 60% of the population donates 1% of their money, that it's supposed to somehow be comparable to 5% of the population donating 5% of their earned money?
>stable lives, happy, healthy
HAHAHA more than 1 in 2 marriages fail, they are constantly crying over why god put them in their shitty situation, and check out where in the US is most obese and most religious.
>more productive
oh hold on.....AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whew, ok. Sorry dude, farming and delivering amazon packages don't count as "more productive" than inventing picometer transistor gates or quantum computers.

>>11708713
Every single person in the US above age 5 has heard numerous times that burning coal and gas are 1) harmful to environment 2) dying out as a business 3) harmful to employees 4)harmful to everyone in society and 5) supported by lobbyists and only benefits the rich.
Everyone who "unintentionally" pushes for their children to be unhealthy is definitely, absolutely, 100% doing it knowing exactly what they are doing.

So in conclusion, climate change is real, deniers are retards, and OP is a faggot.

>>11734322

Thermodynamics preclude a steady state alternative

Denial and catastrophe are equally pitiful science and engineering

Somebody here is chemically imbalanced and needs to do their biology homework

>>11734462
More vague nonsense instead of an argument. Yawn.

>>11734575

Little twat thinks we should present him an argument

>>11735024

"As the true Earth has neither ideal temperature stations nor infinitely dense spatial coverage, one
can never capture the ideal global average temperature completely; however, the available data can be used to tightly constrain its value." - BETAP

Exactly what dude tried to tell you.

>>1173512

Boom, finally somebody else read the article.

Don't bother explaining it to the child, he'll say strawman or cherry picked or some combination of the two.

>>11733136

...drugs are bad, cops are here to help, and other juvenile nonsense.

Grow up.

>>11731346

Who cares about data from the ocean huh

>>11735983
Ocean temperature is more consistent than land temperature and matters less to humans. You can also just observe it from space trivially, when satellite is over those areas there isn't much to do so the data is cheap. Climate stations are on land because those measurements are relevant to people, there is just a nice secondary benefit for high fidelity data for long term climate observations.

>>11736206

Trivially lol

>>11736601
Yes?

>>11735024
Actually I know you're incapable of coming up with one.

>>11737777

Do your homework

>>11737777

Why would he argue with you, when the article's authors already have (and you ignored them)