/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14718631
>thinking humans aren't a part of nature

>>14718631
>simulated
>hey guys, my simulation aligned exactly with political leanings
errrrry single time

>i come to 4chan.org to regurgitate ZOG's conventional wisdom

>>14718640
>>14718682
>>14718684
Cope

>>14718707
>Cope

>>14718712
Cope

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/
can be explained by temperature stations being compromised by local heat island effects

>>14718631

>>14719324
t. Heartland Institute

>>14719324
>The Heartland Institute helped fund some of Watts' projects, including publishing a report on the Surface Stations project, and has invited him to be a paid speaker at its International Conference on Climate Change from 2008 to 2014.
Oh wow, a "scientist" funded by the fossil fuel lobby, sure, let's trust him, I'm sure he's unbiased.

>>14718631
The main question is if change is negative.
Our current default position is:
human = evil = evil bad change.

>>14718631
So you've demonstrated that human activity results in the warming of the climate, brilliant.

Now show us your plan for human depopulation, because that is the ONLY credible answer to climate change. To reduce emissions one needs to reduce consumption, and to reduce consumption one can only reduce the population, drastically.

Now please in great detail, explain how you plan to eliminate the excess 5 billion or so people?

Plus, in the process, you will have to permanently retard the global capitalistic market economy which is built on the ludicrous assumption of perpetual growth (increasing consumption).

People who deny climate change should be forced to face the consequences of climate change. Missouri is a conservative state. It should not be allowed to receive federal assistance for flooding.

>>14719670
If you worry about emissions.
nuclear energy for co2 neutral energy-production, carbon capture&storage if we want to reduce CO2-levels.

In general https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3sGedeK4

>>14719657
>The main question is if change is negative.
Ok, let's look at what that climate change brings us:
>more heat
Bad
>drought
Bad
>runaway warming
Bad. We'd like a controlled change
>mass extinction
Bad

>>14719695
Electricity is an important source of CO2 emissions but by far not the only one. Heating and transport are mostly fossil fuel based

>>14719705
>Heating and transport are mostly fossil fuel based
it doesn't have to be, you can create carbon-neutral fuel for use in combustion engines (both oil for using existing infrastructure and hydrogen with some modification is possible) using electricity from nuclear plants.
Electricity based heating is also an option.
other examples of unnecessary sources are things like CO2 from portland cement production which could be replaced by geopolymeres.

>>14719700
>>The main question is if change is negative.
> Ok, let's look at what that climate change brings us:
> more heat
heat increase in warm regions is low, most increase happens in cold regions. Plant growth doubles every 10°C
> drought
increased temperature creates more evaporation and therefor more rainfall, drought is limiting you vision to where rainfall patterns change to increase drought while ignoring where drought is removed (e.g. greening sahara)
> runaway warming
hypothetical worst case is the Cambrian, panic assumes positive feedback and ignores negative feedback which explains current data not lining up with predictions.
> Bad. We'd like a controlled change
possible, we know how to remove CO2 from air
> >mass extinction
largest degree would happens in an ice-age, warming reduces risk of ice-age.

>>14719742
>it doesn't have to be, you can create carbon-neutral fuel for use in combustion engines (both oil for using existing infrastructure and hydrogen with some modification is possible) using electricity from nuclear plants.
Which would be the most retarded solution. They have an efficiency of 10-15% compared to 70% with electric vehicles. Either way, this doesn't happen over night. You need to replace the existing power plants, build CO2 neutral ones and build more for the increased demand. And you either need e-fuel pants, or new cars.
>Electricity based heating is also an option.
Again, you need more power plants and heat pumps to replace oil and gas based heating.

>>14719705
>>14719742
Heating can be accomplished for free by recycling the waste heat from high power devices like stoves, washers, dryers, and high power computers such as gaming computers and cryptocurrency miners. Simply pass the exhaust or waste water through a heat exchanger to heat water in a radiator.

>>14719742
>Plant growth doubles every 10°C
Except when it doesn't. Even the ~1° increase we have now is accompanied by droughts. Why did no one warn us?

>>14719742
>mass extinction
>largest degree would happens in an ice-age, warming reduces risk of ice-age.
That's simply wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event
>The scientific consensus is that the causes of extinction were elevated temperatures and in the marine realm widespread oceanic anoxia and ocean acidification due to the large amounts of carbon dioxide that were emitted by the eruption of the Siberian Traps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic–Jurassic_extinction_event
>the most well-supported and widely-held theory for the cause of the Tr-J extinction places the blame on the start of volcanic eruptions in the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP). The CAMP is the geographically largest known large igneous province, and was responsible for outputting a high amount of carbon dioxide to induce profound global warming and ocean acidification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinction
>Leading hypotheses include changes in sea level and ocean anoxia, possibly triggered by global cooling or oceanic volcanism.

"More CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> warming" is one of the main causes of mass extinction. Yes, other events were triggered by an impact winter, but no, our CO2 emissions don't help us prepare for a giant meteor. That's just wishful thinking.

>>14719765
Thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.

>>14719670
>eliminate the excess 5 billion or so people?
Ah, /pol/ has the answers for you, in great, great depth.

>>14719806
Are you implying that hot water/air can't be used to heat cool water? How many times did you fail physics 1?

>>14719815
Entropy says there's a limit. The water inside a radiator is 60-80°. If the cooling water has that temperature, at what temperature does your PC run?

>>14719854
Typically over 100 F at full load. Your stove, washer, and dryer run even hotter. None of this is new or revolutionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat_recovery_unit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_heat_recycling

>>14718631
>natural only (solar and volcanic)
I guess the magnetic field isn't natural?
http://deeptow.whoi.edu/geomagf.html

>>14718707
Dilate climate tranny, climate "science" is one of the many who is based on frauds and lies

>>14719880
Cope

>>14719324
Makes a a lot of sense since for some eackn "climate change" (first it was the theory all car roads would be congested, then global cooling, then global wamring, then climate change) didn't start happening until 1980 despite supposedly the man made industries being around for much longer than that

>>14719582
>>14719649
>n-no you can't use scientific studies funded by actual opposition. You must only show IPCC studies funded by parties with vested interests of banning fertilizers, cars, animal products, and making the people eat bugs while they do nothing of sorts

>>14719877
A change of 10% doesn't have a significant effect.

>>14719328
>austrailia
we have once again been trolled by the fucking aussies. how will we ever cope? when will we learn? they are immune to our jests, and yet, we are so weak to theirs. not even their scientists will fall for our games. what shame they thrust upon us.

>>14719692
>People who deny climate change should be forced to face the consequences of climate change
Climate alarmists should be legally responsible for their "models" too
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7871221/Montana-national-park-forced-remove-signs-warning-glaciers-gone-2020.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

>>14719898
>funded by actual opposition
It's not an opposition with two sides, faggot. There's science and there's propaganda. Heartland is propaganda.
>parties with vested interests of banning fertilizers, cars, animal products, and making the people eat bugs while they do nothing of sorts
Why would the UN have such interests? The IPCC doesn't conduct their own research, but they evaluate and summarise existing peer-reviewed studies.

>>14719898
>Noooo, you have to accept this "study" from paid shills who are known to lie! It cost ExxonMobil a million dollars!

>>14719865
I'm talking Celsius, moron. 100°F can't heat water to a useful temperature.

>>14719809
I've found their answers silly. If the climate "scientists" are correct, then we're already fucked. We should maximize the human population in hopes that a cadre of supergeniuses will invent/discover novel solutions. I asked pol and they agreed, but they strangely specified which races would be best suited to maximize the populations of, in order to ensure for a healthy pool of high-IQ candidates.

>>14719912
>using celcius in a scientific context
hahahahahahaha

>>14719912
Of course it can. Simply use it to preheat incoming water. Again, none of this is new.

>>14719742
>carbon-neutral
99% of "greenhouse gasses" are water vapor

>it doesn't have to be, you can
It is completely irrelevant what some UN PR wagie says "it can" be done, what's being done in practice with the help of scientists is normalization of bug eating, banning fertilizers gradually or even cold turkey to induce massive famine, also banning anything that uses combustion so no one can travel freely. Private jets and boats of course are off limits since the rich people imposing this neofeudalism system don't really believe in the excuse they use (otherwise they wouldn't buy beach houses or areas that will be "flooded" in the future)
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/edible-insects-scientists-plan-to-feed-primary-school-children-locusts-and-mealworms-to-make-the-uk-greener-1657372
https://grist.org/food/fertilizer-is-a-major-pollutant-why-doesnt-the-government-regulate-it-as-one/
https://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lanka-lifts-fertilizer-import-ban-after-outcry/93572

>>14719921
Water vapor can't drive global warming because of it's short atmospheric residence time. The rest of your post is nonsense and strawman arguments.

>>14719800
>The scientific consensus
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/03/19/science-irreproducible-research-quiet-crisis/xunxnfuzwdwYSpVjkx2iQN/story.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/26/allegations-of-fabricated-research-undermine-key-alzheimers-theory.html

But yeah just trust le heckin science deacons council that determines what is the current science or not

>>14719927
>water vapor can't drive global warming because it's short lived
>it's been there for decades and hasn't gone away
so you're saying we can just cover up all the surface water, add some plants, and we'll be golden. that's great. now tell this to "The Science" and see how long it takes before they murder you

>>14719933
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for about a week on average which is why it's not a well mixed gas. The local concentration of water vapor is driven by local temperatures and water availability. You should try to learn what you're talking about before speaking out of your ass.

>>14719900
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-magnetic-field-flip-could-happen-sooner-than-expected/
https://www.earth.com/news/earths-magnetic-field-shifts-ten-times-faster-than-expected/
https://inhabitat.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-is-weakening-ten-times-faster-than-expected/

This is an ACTUAL problem, much more substantial than "climate change"
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/19/world/magnetic-fields-earth-intl-scli-scn/index.html

All the electric shit (that is just a tighter control grid of the masses) would be absolutely fried during a magnetic pole shift so the climate discussion is secondary at best

>>14719936
None of the article mentions that the current climate change has anything to do with it.

>>14719900
And you think that why? Graph only goes to 2000 in that link. Do climate scientists even do experiments in a lab?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/study-blames-earths-magnetic-field-flip-for-climate-change-extinctions/

>>14719910
>i-it's lying when their studies contradict mine. It's perfectly acceptable scientific practice when I fraud.

>>14719948
No mention that today's climate change can be explained by the recent decrease of 10%

>>14719907
>Why would the UN have such interests?
Perhaps they want to create a mutt slave caste with no possibility of creating threatening groups (such as patriarchal families and racial based ethnicities) that is too sick and doped to revolt against them who is also being controlled everywhere by 7G powered armed robots?
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/repub-if-the-globohomo-creators-of-this-art-style-should-JOtaGzgC9
https://press.un.org/en/2018/wom2136.doc.htm
https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-who-updates-widely-used-gender-mainstreaming-manual
https://www.exposingsatanism.org/the-united-nations-is-normalizing-pedophilia/

>>14719952
>Noooo, you can't just assume they're lying because they're paid to lie!

>>14719927
>Water vapor can't drive global warming because of it's short atmospheric residence time.
You do realize ozone is created from oxygen molecules (which CO2 has) and it's also highly unstable after being created by UVC right?

>>14719946
>None of the article mentions that the current climate change has anything to do with it.
It doesn't matter you fucking idiot, the solutions to the "current climate change" are all based on increasing the electric grid.

What do you think would happen if the magnetic field shifted earlier than scientists told it would happen and everyone was using electric vehicles only? It's even worse when you consider the plans to automatize food production with 5G

>>14719976
>oxygen molecules (which CO2 has)
You are a special kind of stupid.

>>14719984
>It doesn't matter you fucking idiot
It doesn't matter if the articles I link don't back my hypothesis, I'm right, my feelings don't care about facts!
>the solutions to the "current climate change" are all based on increasing the electric grid.
>electric vehicles
>5G
Ouch. Take your meds.

>>14719582
>>14719649
there's a plain picture and IR image of a poorly sited temperature station, one which doubly contributes to warming bias because it was moved from a grassy area to the rocky place you see there
but please continue with your ad hominem fallacies, he probably lied about the other 127 surveyed stations

>>14720005
The sample size is insufficient and cherry picked. You shouldn't get your information from shills.

There no point in arguing with this troll he refuses to engage with data or methodology and says all data is fake

>>14720005
>with your ad hominem fallacies
You are literally reading press releases from the oil industry. They don't even hide it.

>>14720011
t. Shill

>>14720005
The urban heat effect has been known for decades. Now temperatures are backed up by satellite readings

>>14720009
how do you argue that 128 is insufficient? the trendlines are very similar to NOAA's published data from the complete sample size
there was a previous study done on >1000 stations with similar results

NOAA's own research has demonstrated that significant heat island effects occur on temperature stations if there's pavement within about 100m, pic related
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/6/jamc-d-19-0002.1.xml

>>14720024
It's fewer than 10% of stations and the locations were cherry picked. It's statistical manipulation performed by known shills who get paid to perform statistical manipulation.

>>14720034
i am interested in that assertion but need more than that to habeeb it, re: their selection process and/or opposing evidence on how many stations are non-compliant

>>14720042
Then find it yourself. The Heartland Institute is paid to lie. It's a waste of time to engage with their "research".

>>14720019
how about an average anomaly over time chart?

>>14720042
Here’s the data when it’s not cherry picked for the few that have extreme urban heating

>>14720061

>>14720061
if they were selecting stations based on their extreme warming bias then why is the average trendline from those noncompliant stations less warm than NOAA's total average

>>14720065
Yes? Doesn't that show how the current rise is a lot faster than natural change?
Also, if you consider the historical context, that this is the end of the last ice age, you see that we're at an interglacial. We're supposed to sit at the plateau, before we slowly drift into the next ice age. Slowly means tens of thousands of years.

>>14720076
looks like splicing recent, high frequency data with low-resolution historical proxies that are necessarily smoothed out, ie michael mann's bullshit

>>14720071
Global Instrumental temperature products contain tens of thousands of stations in addition to satellite data there are several organizations around the world who produce these products. That Heartland data manipulation uses a small amount of stations in the continental US that show outlier data as if that effect hasn’t been known.

>>14720076
Even in the onset of the interglacial the fastest warming was at the rate of 1c per a few thousand years. Now we’re seeing 1c+ heating in one hundred years, 20x faster
>>14720087
That graph uses proxy data reconstructions, no instrumental data

>>14720096
if watts were deliberately selecting extremely warm noncompliant sites then i would expect the asserted temperatures from those stations to be higher than NOAA's complete average, but they are not. so what else are you asserting they've manipulated?

>>14719999
>Ouch. Take your meds.
So I'm right and you have no response

>>14720042
>i am interested in that assertion but need more than that to habeeb it, re: their selection process and/or opposing evidence on how many stations are non-compliant
While I don't think the 128 sample is sufficient due to its self-selected nature, being that it is therefore biased by design, the link you posted by the NOAA answers the disagreement. At least I think it was you? So if you're going to habeeb anything probably the here >>14720024 is a fair summary of the problem, how they're dealing with it, and its implications. The issue at hand is so thoroughly demonstrated by a plurality of methods I don't think one even *has to* bother with questions of selection bias because the point is moot.

So what I'm saying is, ask yourself: does it matter? We have a multitude of satellites and other records to cross-check and compare figures with. Even if a given set of instruments have a wide margin of error, these still comport with a multitude of methods showing the same thing. Are the ground stations compromised by encroachment? Somewhat, sometimes, to varying degrees. Does it matter in the overall picture? I don't really think it does.

So contrary to the people saying ignore it, I'm saying read what you linked very thoroughly. Better still, read further research on comparing and mitigating measurement errors, reconstructions of temperatures from multiple sources (written, archaeological, etc).

>>14720105
What an amazing argument

>>14720115
there's also disagreement among big datasets, notably UAH showing markedly less decadal warming, and from what i've gathered from each dataset's methodology im inclined to believe UAH is closer to the truth

>>14718631
I replied to another thread. Data is fraudulent and was faked.
>global warming
Data is fraudulent. They were caught many times. To a point that they had to rebrand "global warming" into a "climate change'.

>New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’
>MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/

>>14720105
Here's your (you)

>>14720120
Yes, there are discrepancies because you're never going to have perfect alignment due to margins of error differences between methods. However, saying "there's disagreement" needs context. That context is: Vanishingly decreasing disagreement with improved methods over time, and, MOST IMPORTANT, all methods still show very rapid warming trends with greater climate instability overall.

The real question you need to ask is not "if there's disagreement", because there probably always will be, but "does that disagreement matter?" To which the answer is pretty clearly "not at all".

>>14719582
>>14719649
dumbest possible reply, what scientists aren't biased by their funding

>>14720128
IIRC UAH posts 0.13C/decade warming, as for "climate instability" im gonna need a less subjective term.

So no climate tranny is going to address the issue of all climate change solutions revolving around making everything as dependent on "clean" electricity (instead of "fossil" fuels) as possible when there's a magnetic field shift right around the corner that would destroy all electric infrastructure?
>>14719984

Scientists can't even make a small scale model of a globe earth and it's magnetic field, I doubt it could create an artificial magnetic field too

>>14720120
Those are completely different datasets. The previous is surface temperature and the latter is in upper atmospheric data. Again, it’s been known for many many years that the upper atmosphere is warming at a different rate than the surface, where the greenhouse effect has the most impact from the re emitted IR coming from CO2

>>14720133
>what scientists aren't biased by their funding
The ones who publish in peer-reviewed journals rather than websites of lobby organizations.

>>14720136
>IIRC UAH posts 0.13C/decade warmin
You need to understand that what UAH measures is different from what ground is measuring. UAH is measuring low-mid troposphere and low stratosphere. You can look this up yourself if you want, but there are significant delays of a decade or two between large increases in gasses that cause warming effects and the same temperature increase at those layers in the atmosphere.

In other words, there's good observed reason to suggest relying only on UAH is underselling the warming trend due to those delays. Plus, there are a lot more datasets and a lot more satellites measuring the same thing or different things. Say the USA data is corrupted? Okay, is the entire rest of the world? The totality of oceanic temperature data from all sources? Airplanes?
>as for "climate instability" im gonna need a less subjective term.
The way I am using it is not subjective. Instability would be your peaks and valleys and how extreme those are year-over-year. How long the droughts last, how rapidly they cycle, how hot and how cold, and so on. These are all objectively measured and measurable things, and quite aptly called "instability" as the climate has greater extremes at either end.

>>14720154
Your claim is that scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals aren't biased by their funding? Lol you need to be 18 to post here.

>>14720155
the divergence in correlation between satellite and surface measurements is a relatively new feature, one which im skeptical anyone has a proper explanation for but where im inclined to distrust surface temperature datasets.

>>14720167
>the divergence in correlation between satellite and surface measurements is a relatively new feature, one which im skeptical anyone has a proper explanation for but where im inclined to distrust surface temperature datasets.
That divergence can be explained by what I already mentioned, in that there's a delay in warming as you go up into the atmosphere. Sudden shifts in ground temperature would, therefore, delay as mentioned.

But please focus on what I asked: You can distrust one source of data, but all of them? Weather stations, ground stations around the world, ocean data from buoys, ships, temperature logs of aircraft, civilians who contribute data, multiple fields of science, the list is very extensive. How are ALL of them wrong, how is the satellite explanation wrong, when it fits the explanation?

>>14720176
the theory used to be that the lower troposphere would warm faster than the surface. so "a delay in warming as you go up into the atmosphere" sounds less like an explanation to me than a kneejerk.
ive frequently seen what i believe to be systemic bias or otherwise faulty methodology in most datasets, climate or otherwise. for example a shift in ocean datasets from buckets dipped away from ships to reading water intakes on the ship. UAH is an exception where the methodology has been remarkably consistent over time with no significant issues brought up regarding its correctness.

>>14720167
>where im inclined to distrust surface temperature datasets.
Why exactly? Those use a wide variety of data including satellites like the UAH does, plus the same warming can be seen in the ocean and in fast accumulation proxies like corals

>>14720187
How would UAH measurements be different from satellite measurements from the surface?

>>14720187
>the theory used to be that the lower troposphere would warm faster than the surface. so "a delay in warming as you go up into the atmosphere" sounds less like an explanation to me than a kneejerk.
I think at this point you're describing how science works as something denigrating to avoid looking into it. Or considering what I asked about the plurality of all the data sources.

Consider: If we observe something we don't know, what are you supposed to do? Propose hypotheses, test the hypotheses, but you're calling that "a kneejerk". Let's assume the theory was the opposite. So what? People observed something, tested it, their models were falsified by observation. That's what is supposed to happen if we're wrong, but you describe it as "a kneejerk" instead of testing theories. Why?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data/

If you read this you'll get a brief overview of modeling and testing. One important aspect is hindcasting, or independently using a model to see if it actually fits what has been observed. Similarly, testing a model with different data inputs it wasn't trained or modeled after can be used. None of this is just throwing out guesses blindly and contradicting, but improving accuracy that works across data inputs and across time. Where is there "kneejerking"? When did falsification become "a kneejerk" instead of standard science?