/sci/ - Science & Math

data before adjustment

data after adjustment

>>15337084
saved

>>15337094

who else can you rely on for data though?
i certainly don't have the capability to accurately measure the atmospheric temperatures for the past 100 years or whatever.
how do you confirm the validity of data, and how do you standardize that data in accordance with how methods of measurement have changed?

i would imagine that regardless of how the temperature of the planet is changing, if there was an objective or nearly objective record of that change, it would be hard to argue for anything but the truth.

>>15337102
>who else can you rely on for data though?
Citizen scientists competing for the most accurate measurements

Trusting non-replicable data sets under the circumstances for intolerably high degrees of moral hazard will go down as the 21st centuries version of the galileo affair

>>15337102
>if there was an objective or nearly objective record of that change, it would be hard to argue for anything but the truth.
Get a load of this anon. Still believes the TV and the "government". kek

>>15337102
It's the same retards another anon already corrected about old data not correcting for known heat island effects and whatnot. Things you can examine, test, and account for.
>>15337076
>I don't understand it therefore conspiracy and lies
as if anyone falls for your bullshit

>>15337076
man made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

>>15337076
>>15337094
Is there any other sources for this claim other than this blog ? I couldn't find any other information about it. I did find this page about the author of that blog though. He's clearly got an adgenda, posts under a pseudonym and is not a climatologist
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard

>>15337076
>>15337094
Is there any other sources for this claim other than that blog ? I couldn't find any other information about it. I did find this page about the author of that blog though. He's clearly got an adgenda, posts under a pseudonym and is not a climatologist
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard
I couldn't find anything about the Hansen fellow corrupting data either, although he does sound like a lunatic due to his activism

>>15337885
>is not a climatologist
only make him more trustworthy, climatologists are the ones with agendas, they're out of a job unless they say that the world is going to end in two weeks, ostracized via the peer review process.

>>15338177
>climatologists are the ones with agendas
just like cops and foxnews

>>15338223
>foxnews
their agenda isn't what you think it is. rupert murdoch is a business partner of george soros in a number of ventures, fox is a controlled opposition news outlet.

>>15337076
Based Tony Heller enjoyer.
Climatology is really a cargo cult/government propaganda.

>>15338428
Atmospheric science was a subset of physics until about 30 years ago. When they turned it into "climate science" and took it out from under he umbrella of physics, it lost all of its rigor and basis in mathematics. Kind of a shame too, if all those climate scientists were banging their heads against difficult physics like convection and other tough thermodynamics issue, some nice new analytical solutions might've eventually popped out. Unfortunately is all just a bunch of lame brained eco activists instead, what a gyp

>>15337102
The data is all sourced from NASA & NOAA

>>15338419
>fox is a controlled opposition news outlet.
No shit. And Rupert the monkey boy is no longer in charge, it's his ultra-leftist son who has had gay sex with top Democrats, who controls Fox News now.

www.infowars.com for real news.

>>15337885
>>15337102
Go through Berkley Earth's methodology, which was specifically organized to assess these adjustments and other claims by skeptics.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3469/2020/essd-12-3469-2020.html

>>15339991
>i started muh graph in the mini-ice age caused by the tambora eruption in order trick low iqs into taking one quick glance at the graph and presuming global warming is real
why are climate hysterics all so dishonest?
lmao that this kind of lying routinely passes peer review, really shows how aggressively untrustworthy scientists are.

>>15337076
The problem I have with all these arguments is it doesn't align with what's happening in the natural world.

Basically all Climate Change Deniers have at their disposal is attacking data points because if they were forced to address real world changes happening in all disciplines they would immediately lose all their arguments. So they attack data points.

Meanwhile:
Fish are migrating
https://e360.yale.edu/features/feeling-the-heat-warming-oceans-drive-fish-into-cooler-waters
Fish, birds, insects, and even plants are migrating due to climate change
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210319125516.htm
Adelie penguins, which are an arctic species are dying and being replaced by gentoo penguins, which are subarctic, because the sea ice they depend on is shrinking
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/19267/20160111/warmer-waters-cause-overlap-between-adelie-gentoo-penguins-antarctic.htm

Because animals don't read charts. They simply react to changing climate. You can't trick nature by pretending climate change is a lie by posting misleading charts and misinformation.

So keep posting bullshit. The whole scientific world knows climate change is happening. The only ones who don't are old irrelevant dinosaurs from the past who refuse to accept the changing science and people on the payroll of oil companies.

>>15339995
>I don't know anything about the subject so everyone else is wrong
Do you have any specific arguments about methodology or are you just going to continue schizoposting?

>>15338419
>>15339638
>t. massive tin foil hatters

Climate scientists will tell you that the dust bowl era was fake, but they will also tell you that the dust bowl era proves that global warming is real.
No matter what the context, they will always come up with a lie that "proves" global warming is real.
They have to lie, because global warming is fake.

>>15340260
>claim without source
>contradictory claim without source
Okay chump.

>>15340004
Wow, so you mean animals can adapt to a changing world? You mean that animals haven't lived in the same place since the beginning of time? That they have always migrated and changed habitats?
What a revelation.

>>15340006
That's TWO separate data sets combined. It literally says it at the bottom:
>(& HadCRUT4.6 for 2001 - 2019)

That would be like combining two different datasets from two separate clinical trials, both of which had widely different clinical parameters, and then saying "Yeah, this is bad!"
It's literally pseudoscience.

>>15340279
I'm still bewildered about mammoths living in the coldest parts of the planet during the ice age and then when it got hot, they decided to live in Africa & south Asia.

>>15340371
What's wrong with that? These (and several other) datasets are in good agreement when considered separately.

>>15340443
>temperature anomaly starts in the little ice age
errry single time
political activists posing as scientists are killing science

>>15337108
Except Marx percieved class as larger entities meaning poorfag trump support would be opposed to wealthier purple hair lady and bourgeois man alike. Just look at what Lenin did and advocated.

>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

>>15340476
>errry single time
No, not "erry single time". You just choose to plug your ears and go "la la la conspiracy muh feels doe"

>>15340920
>One particular email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.
>Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

>>15340949
>One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960.
lmaoooo

>the tree ring data that appears to show warming is good and reliable data
>the tree ring data that doesn't appear to show warming is bad and unreliable data, so we must replace this data with a different set of data
that's how science works chud, you splice together different sets of data collected under different circumstances from different source with different methods to make something that fits your preconceived idea

>>15337076
It was cooling up to that point.
Now it's heating up very rapidly.

Franz Josef Glacier is an amazing Glacier and I'm staggered at how fast it has receded since I was there.

>>15337547
/thread

>>15340371
They have equivalent resolutions what the fuck are you smoking?

>>15341106
The answer for what science denialists are smoking is always "their own farts".

https://youtu.be/v2cRG7aaMD0

>>15337085
>after adjustment
Is this how the "hockey stick" was engineered?

>>15341371
>All data adjustments are dishonest cuz conspiracy
I don't suppose bothering to learn or look up any of the relevant papers and science involved is on the table for you?

>>15341395
Tried looking up anything even vaguely controversial lately? Google has become increasingly useless the last few years but it is truly useless on anything relating to climate, gender, Trump, etc.
Yes, I know 4ch is not the most reliable site, but the sad reality is, few places are anymore.

>>15341406
>Tried looking up anything even vaguely controversial lately?
Yes. This isn't one of them. This is not controversial nor is it hard to find. These changes were, largely, the result of accounting for urban heat island effects. OP and OP's retarded article avoid mentioning the obvious because they're not honest. As per usual.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

This took me all of five minutes to find. Probably because, unlike denialists, I am not completely clueless. Minimum temperatures for earlier reports were not adequately adjusted for urban heat island effects contemporary to their era, and unsurprisingly this results in erroneously reporting (as in 1999) higher minimum temperatures and an overall more similar appearance of US temperature.

You'll also get denialists as usual going "muh conspiracy", which doesn't work even a little as without that adjustment it matches no other changes to global averages due to such errors. As per usual one has to allege global mass conspiracy of millions of related professionals in order to believe this is anything more than more science denying lies. The only confusing part in google searching may be some weird era of similar internet retards claiming the whole of the warming effect is due to uncorrected heat-islands, which is easily seen to not be the case and that myth mostly died out.

>>15341537
>>15341406
In future if you genuinely are having difficulty finding something you can always look up the publication resource for some given set of data to find out the real reason. EVEN IF it WERE TRUE that something fishy is going on, in every single case you will find the work these idiots try to do (if any) never comes close or is relevant to discovering it.
>Yes, I know 4ch is not the most reliable site, but the sad reality is, few places are anymore.
Any time you see a boomer meme that is a clear sign they're full of shit. Honest people try to cite their sources, and give justification for why something is done or isn't. Dishonest people or lazy people just immediately go "muh conspiracy" and never, ever, properly cite their sources. Even when you find someone who is doing so, odds are they're very carefully cherrypicking from the available data or only posting what confirms their bias. Hence, again, the very low amount of, or entirely irrelevant, work done supposedly evidencing their narratives.

So just from a single link alone explaining the actual reason for temperature adjustment, the whole case OP's link makes falls apart. It falls apart for far more reasons than that, such as its blatant misrepresentation of the multitude of DIFFERENT lines of evidence making it possible to reconstruct local regional temperature over time where direct data is poor or unavailable. Guess what the response to that is?
>Muh conspiracy
Never any real work, never any serious work, never any competent work, evidencing such a narrative. So yeah maybe don't be gullible enough to fall for boomer memes.

>>15341565
>Honest people try to cite their sources, and give justification for why something is done or isn't.
source?

>>15341631
>and give justification

>I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

Michael E. Mann

>>15343088
>Is it that I don't understand it?
>No, that's impossible. It's clearly malicious conspiracy.

>>15343088
>he's still going on about Mann
It's been 20 years and his results have been replicated multiple times
The MWP has been known to be a regional event verified by regional proxies.

>So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately.

Tom Wigley

>>15343134
No you don't get it inference and judgments given limited data are ALWAYS conspiracy and malicious when they don't affirm my bias!!

What do you mean some assumptions are more reasonable than others given prior data? I don't know what induction is so it's clearly evil

>>15343146
>>So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately.
>>15343112
>>Is it that I don't understand it?
>>No, that's impossible. It's clearly malicious conspiracy.
>>Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
>I don't understand discussions of data normalization or the importance of identifying inconsistencies therefore malice

>If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Phil Jones

>>15343186
>Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data
Gee, wonder why someone would not want to release their own work and data against their will when their value is in having it in the first place. Not that I think such people should have their value based on that, but proprietary data exists everywhere.
>All data people don't want to release is conspiracy
You're so pathetic this is effortless.

>I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven.

Malcolm Hughes

>>15343234
>Doesn't know science doesn't prove things
>people have reasonable doubts as to the independent strength of causation
>clearly this means it's all made up
Why the fuck do you /x/tards who hate science even come here?

>but honestly know fuck-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

Edward Cook

>>15343234
All you can do is cherrypick and lie.
>The difference between the Campito Mountain record and, for example, the one from the Polar Urals that you mention, is that there is no meaningful correlation between the Campito record and local temperature, whereas there is a strong correlation in the Polar Urals case. I give references to the work reporting this phenomenon at the end of this message, but I'm afraid I'm missing the references to the technical comments that are being responded to in the last two. If you examine my Fig 1 closely you will see that the Campito record and Keith's reconstruction from wood density are extraordinarily similar until 1850. After that they differ not only in the lack of long-term trend in Keith's record, but in every other respect - the decadal-scale correlation breaks down. I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend. It is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their bark - 'stripbark' trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene. I am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of decadal-scale growth season temperature variability. I am equally confident that, after that date, they are recording something else. I'm split between Harvard Forest and UMASS these days, and my copy of your paper is not with me today. I'd be interested to know what the name of the site for the LaMarche central Colorado record was.

>>15343252
In 2003 Mr. Cook wrote concerning a paper,
>After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the tentative title:
>"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest Uncertainties?"
Gee, who knew people in 2003 were still trying to find more and better answers to as yet unsolved or erroneously solved questions. Gee, who knew they'd proceed to solve them and in the way you don't like.

Unlucky for you, I have these papers. You seem to only copy paste the cherrypicking trolls did to embarrass you idiots.

>I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases" for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.

Tom Wigley

Note how the denier is talking about out of context quotes and not engaging with evidence

>>15343305
What else is new lol

>Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things.

Phil Jones

>>15343293
...And?
Which is it? Wigley is being honest and the scientists are clearly as shown allowed dissent, and are fighting for more balanced reporting to not distort what they think they know, or they're dishonest and trying to hide their lies? You don't get it both ways.
>>15343311
...And?
>>15343305
>Note how the denier is talking about out of context quotes and not engaging with evidence
Engaging with the evidence to repeatedly demonstrate you lot lying is somehow "not engaging with evidence". lol

>I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

Keith Briffa

>>15343347
And? Was it quite so simple in 2003? Is it far more certain and simple now? Now you're just reduced to contradicting yourself from earlier, and presenting the scientists as being honest about the limitations. Yet entirely dishonest in supposing that is true then as now with no change.
>engage with the evidence
>N-NOOO NOT THAT WAY basedjack.jpg

the environmental movement that started with the 1960s hippies has always been a disconnected from reality fashion statement for wealthy & upper middle class urbanites who have nothing else to offer to justify their existence and who feel some level of guilt over their unearned position in society. why can't rich kids just be happy passing the time playing tennis & croquet like they did in the old days? if they would go back to being christians then they could just thank god for being born rich once a week on sunday and live the rest of their lives carefree.

>"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud."

Tom Wigley

>>15337076
Is this really the new shill narrative? Its basically like saying, "yeah, the global temperature is climbing faster than at any point in Earth's history, but maybe its climbing slightly slower than we thought" while not understanding why adjustments were made and ignoring that America's climate is not the global climate.

>I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Phil Jones

>>15343491
Definitely not "new". The trolls/ideologues pushing it have been called and corrected on it repeatedly. As usual, they're immune to accepting correction and can only do more cherrypicked lying. Your usual flat earther types.

>>15343491
>the global temperature is climbing faster than at any point in Earth's history
it isn't, the weather is the same now as it was in the 1990s

>>15343519
>it isn't, the weather is the same now as it was in the 1990s
Source: your ass.

>>15343514
The last one I remember is "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" which was really absurd because you can do cheap experiments in your home to prove that it is.

>>15343526
Oh no they still push that BS too. Like all dishonest types they'll pick and choose whichever lie is convenient in the moment with no ability to admit the contradictions involved. It's less about truth and exclusively about feeling special and avoiding the horrible realization they're not.

>>15343519
Nonsense, Zoomer. Anyone whose been alive since then can see the changes to the local and global weather patterns.

>If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Phil Jones

>>15343532
>It's less about truth and exclusively about feeling special and avoiding the horrible realization they're not.
Maybe, but I'm not sure how they can compartmentalize all the evidence they're presented with. Dunning-Kruger effect might explain part of it.

>>15343549
My explanation is exactly how/why they compartmentalize like that. The worst offenders would definitely involve clinical narcissism I'm pretty sure, given the level of manipulation and delusion required to maintain that degree of inconsistency. That is very different from people who just don't get it at all, because in those cases they're just unable to compartmentalize or deal with the conflicts except to fall back on their assumptions or faith in a more honest way.

A good comparison might be dishonest people like Kent Hovind versus your average young earth creationist who is just going to admit they can't explain contradictions but fall back on their faith instead. One is a narcissist (kent), the other is just stuck.

>>15339991
>global
Using data from concrete cities that experience the heat island effect is not a good snapshot of reality

>PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Phil Jones

>>15343561
Rural measuring stations show the same trend.

>>15343559
I don't think its that simple. Often times they have to invent global conspiracies to justify why they're rejecting evidence. That's beyond wanting to feel special, its a symptom of major mental illness. I feel like most of these people know they're wrong and keep doing it because they're trolling or benefit in some way (most likely financially) from climate change denial.

>The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

Phil Jones

>>15343602
Where it would be genuine schizophrenia you'd have other symptoms and other things going on. Of course such conspiracies absolutely do attract more schizophrenics than normal, by far, but they're not actually the majority or even the most significant minority.

>>15343622
That why it seems willful to me. Maybe they are just in a state of hardcore denial, but I think its more that they don't care either because they're trolling or benefit from inaction.

>As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

Phil Jones

>>15343659
>That why it seems willful to me
I think in cases where it seems willful that is when you are definitely dealing with narcissism. Excepting the second example outlined where it's some matter of "contingent necessity" and rejecting the necessary conclusion would require that person rebuild their idea of the world ground-up.
... Granted that's also why narcissism is pretty fucking incurable too but I've met people who've changed their minds ground-up and never heard of a narcissist being successfully cured. No clue if that's possible.

>>15343519
Go back even further.
The climate of California is the same as it was in the 1850s when the Donner party got stuck in a terrible snowstorm.
Just like the "crazy" snowstorms of 2022-2023.

>>15343709
The "climate scientists" also want to ignore all previous data of human record, for example all the years where historians documented rivers that dried up, extreme rainfall, floods, hurricanes, freezing winters that lasted into spring and summer and caused famines, etc.
They don't care about anything as long as the "warning trend" is unique, even though we had incredibly warm periods in the recent past that are much warmer than what we're experiencing today. The 1930s were warmed than any recent decade, but "climate scientists" would have you believe otherwise.

Basically, all "climate science" is completely worthless because we still don't understand how Ice Ages form (or what could prevent them from forming). An Ice Age (which we're still in, btw) is much more detrimental to humanity than any warming.
At the end of previous Ice Ages, palm trees and tropical plants extended all the way to the poles, and the biodiversity of the planet increase a ton as the planet was warmer, and thus more food was produced.
Any politician crying about "global warming" is a scam artist; any climate scientist doing the same is only interested in keeping their funding. They don't give a shit about anyone as long as it continues to enrich themselves.

>>15343561
What was that?

>Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn't look too hot. Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they haven't done already
>Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!

Mick Kelly

>>15344146
They do, the thing is these are relevant to the regions in question. Not global climate

>>15344224
>If I put the trend here it’s not warming
Really? This shit again?

>I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug's paper that said something like - half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!

Phil Jones

>>15344220
nice science denialism /b/ro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
notice on the graph that its only the low temperatures which show a warming trend

>>15344253
Yeah it’s a well known effect that’s accounted for in temperature records. Claiming that rapid warming is all due to island heating is retarded.

>>15344253
>he thinks daily high temperatures in the US somehow prove rural stations don't report nearly identical warming trends as stations in cities despite having the graph presented to him
>he thinks weather is climate
>he thinks the US is the world
Did our educational system fail you, or did you fail the system?

>The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

Kevin Trenberth

>>15344146
It's really funny to me that Central European newspapers were printing articles about how riverbeds showing drought marker stones from the middle ages "proved an unprecedented climate change" was happening. Yeah seeing that it has happened before multiple times proves it hasn't happened before. This is the absolute intelligence level of climate cultists.

>>15344806
>A thing with multiple causes before humans were dumping gas into the atmosphere had the same result as before
>Therefore the result occurring now isn't related to humans dumping gasses into the atmosphere
Stellar logic. P therefore Q, Q therefore P. Wait a minute, that's retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

>>15344876
>wikipedia
What other references do you got? CNN or NPR?

>>15344880
>genetic fallacy
Well you're on a roll how many in a row you gonna do?

>>15344806
You'll never get an honest exchange out of climate alarmists. By default they lie, deceive and manipulate. They are so far entrenched in their own lies that the only thing that matters is keeping the lie going so their careers aren't affected. Its never been about the truth.

>>15344930
I bet you're also religious you nazi fuck.

>>15343535
Nonsense, millennial faggot. The earth predates 1980. Just because you grew up during a cold period doesn't mean global warming is real. Talk to your grandparents.

>>15344930

>>15344938
i can tell that you're experiencing emotional distress by your us of profanity. why don't you take a break from the board to calm down so you can discuss science with us on a strictly rational basis when you return?

>>15344259
If it is "accounted for" then why do people keep finding hundreds of stations that report temperatures far higher than other nearby stations, and then discover they are placed in areas that maximize the distortion from the urban heat island effect?

>>15345076
Because global warming is fraud perpetrated by political activists posing as scientists

>>15340006
Why do they call it medieval warm period if there is no noticable increase in warmth shown in your graph?

>>15345665
Because of local weather events in Europe during that time

>>15345076
See
>>15344220

>>15345017
>imagine being this retarded
They say it used to snow in the winter and they miss that.

>>15345710
Now actually go talk to them. My grandparents didn't see a white Christmas until they were 12/14 My parents never had a year without a white Christmas until the 90s. Just because weather cycles are longer than your age doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>15345709
That does not answer my question.

>>15345076
It's not only that, most of these stations/censors are made from metal, which heat up under direct sunlight.
Imagine if all the temperature readings were done in the shade, or in areas with more wind to carry away the excess heat from the electronic systems.
The entire "industry" (more like a con) is a scam to increase their grants at the expense of taxpayers.
If they really cared about science, they would employ way more volunteers who could submit temperature readings as a hobbyist thing, and have guidelines as to how people could help out (don't place censors in direct sunlight, have some shade but not full shade, etc.)
But, they want all the money for themselves, so they have no interest in getting help from volunteers.
When is the last time you saw one of these climate activists outside picking up trash on the side of the road? How often do you see climate activists walking everywhere instead of driving in a car?

>>15345716
You are pulling so much shit out of your ass that your hand must be completely brown at this point

>>15345716
>That does not answer my question.
That graph shows that the stations in the middle of fields closely agree with those "in areas that maximize the distortion from the urban heat island effect". You should probably be ashamed that you couldn't interpret that graph.

>>15345760
No it doesn't, that is cherry picked and "adjusted" data. The entire point of the "adjusting" process is to make the data fit the narrative. Look at the raw data from the stations.

>>15345773
The burden of proof is on you, my guy. Post the data instead of making baseless assertions.

>>15345791
The data is the hadcrut4 data set, numbnuts.

In probably the worst systematic error, the past is rewritten in an attempt to correct for site moves. While some corrections are necessary, these adjustments are brutally sweeping. Thermometers do need to move, but corrections don’t have to treat old sites as if they were always surrounded by concrete and bricks.

New original sites are usually placed in good open sites. As the site “ages” buildings and roads appear nearby, and sometimes air conditioners, all artificially warming the site. So a replacement thermometer is opened in an open location nearby. Usually each separate national meteorology centre compares both sites for a while and figures out the temperature difference between them. Then they adjust the readings from the old locations down to match the new ones. The problem is that the algorithms also slice right back through the decades cooling all the older original readings – even readings that were probably taken when the site was just a paddock. In this way the historic past is rewritten to be colder than it really was, making recent warming look faster than it really was. Thousands of men and women trudged through snow, rain and mud to take temperatures that a computer “corrected” a century later.

We’ve seen the effect of site moves in Australia in Canberra, Bourke, Melbourne and Sydney. After being hammered in the Australian press (thanks to Graham Lloyd), the BOM finally named a “site move” as the major reason that a cooling trend had been adjusted to a warming one. In Australia adjustments to data increase the trend by as much as 40%.

>>15345791
>>15345825

In theory, a thermometer in a paddock in 1860 should be comparable to a thermometer in a paddock in 1980. But the experts deem the older one must be reading too high because someone may have built a concrete tarmac next to it forty or eighty years later. This systematic error, just by itself, creates a warming trend from nothing, step-change by step-change.

Worse, the adjustments are cumulative. The oldest data may be reduced with every step correction for site moves. Ken Stewart found some adjustments to old historic data in Australia wipe as much as 2C off the earliest temperatures. We’ve only had “theoretically” 0.9C of warming this century.

>>15345825
>>15345829
I really don't care about you blog post and there's nothing wrong with the hadcrut4 dataset. Unless you can demonstrate your claim by showing these discrepancies in the data you are just speaking out of your ass. I'll wait for you to post that study that cherry picks fewer than 500 stations.

>>15345865
>oy vey only 1/4 of the stations have obviously incorrect or falsified data the just co-incidentally is responsible for over half of the supposed warming we claim has occurred!
>this clearly means it is very reliable and we should not correct the data at all, since it would then show that our climate models were built to match incorrect temperature records, and so are objectively wrong!

>>15345875
So you have no argument except that cherry picked study written up by a man who receives funding from people who want to discredit climate science. Color me surprised.

>>15345907
So you have no argument except "I don't like facts they cause me cognitive dissonance".

>>15345912
Lol, the irony. Next time don't bring up a study written by a known shill that has been refuted countless times. It just makes you look ignorant and stupid.

>But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess.
>how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
>I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.

Tom Wigley

>>15345957
>don't bring up facts that show I am wrong because it hurts my feelings and I have no way to defend my pet scam that I am emotionally invested in

>>15346016
Cope harder

>>15346028
He says, while presenting absolutely nothing to support his lie.

>There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
>(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals?

Darrell Kaufman

>>15346044
See
>>15344220

Now its your turn.

>The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong

Nick McKay

>>15346052
Yes, that's the manipulated data in question. Now would you like to present an argument for why that manipulation is not a problem?

>You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations.
>The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist
>It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
>I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.

Tom Wigley

>>15337129
Go back to preddit you ignorant moron. This place is for educated minds, not cultists trash like you.

>>15346093
The burden of proof is on you. Its not sufficient to merely claim the data is manipulated.

>If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Ben Santer

>I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

Phil Jones

>>15345756
You climate woke cultist are all the same, no arguments at all, only lies and insults come from you. Since you don't have any evidence to back your absurd claims you use the government to persecute anybody who shows and speaks the truth.

>>15346139
>you don't have any evidence
Lol, anecdotes aren't scientific evidence, retard.

>>15346114
The burden of proof has been met, they clearly tell you the data has been manipulated, you just don't bother to read the documentation accompanying the datasets you also don't bother to read. As long as magic space nigger says climate crisis, that's all that matters to you.

>>15346143
More lies and insults, that is everything you have to offer. You lost this argument.

>>15346147
If you actually think anecdotes are scientific evidence then its clear you've never been involved in academia

>The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.

Jonathan Overpeck

>>15346146
The burden of proof has not been met. Again, its insufficient to just claim that its been manipulated. You haven't provided any evidence of your claims.

>>15346146
You are arguing with a shill. Don't waste your time.

>>15346196
In that case the burden of proof is on you to show the data exists. Just because someone claims it exists doesn't mean it does. That is insufficient. Why would you trust them to provide the data, but not trust them to tell you how they "adjust" the data?

>It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the hockey stick in public forum
>Because as far as I can tell the hockey stick really was a tree-ring record, regardless of how it was labelled as multiproxy, this looks to me to be a really big deal. And, a big deal that may bite your chapter...

Richard Alley

>>15346206
You can squirm all you want, but the burden of proof is on you and its clear that you're unable or unwilling to satisfy it. To me that implies that you know your full of shit.

>>15340944
>duuuuude compare this 100 year ocean level graph we acquired by looking at erosion and algae and shit with this hour timelapse of the tide coming in
>we're all going to be underwater within a year or two

>>15346234
You can squirm all you want, but the burden of proof is on you and its clear that you're unable or unwilling to satisfy it. To me that implies that you know your full of shit.

>>15337084
>>15337085
It's funny that after all this bullshit, ad hominems, and thought-terminating cliches in this thread, no one can rebut this information on how the data from climate "scientists" was changed.
This BTFO the "hockey stick graph", and basically all other bullshit that climate scientists have released.

>>15346307
>i'll just ignore the source explaining the reason for the adjustment to specific US data
>even though I also claim the heat island effect is what's causing warming

>>15345665
In Europe at the time, yes it was warmer. The globe as a whole? No. It's a pretty simple concept

>>15346307
Why do you ignore the post 2000 temperature increase and are crying over a quarter of a degree adjustment due to urban heating that you lot later use as an argument later?

>>15346307
That's the problem. They think it was changed for a good reason, but it wasn't. It was changed to make "climate change" more real, even though the climate of the 1930s was warmer.
This is clear from all the climategate emails that were leaked, which the Fake News MSM promptly ignored or refused to cover, even though it completely outed the scam they were running behind the scenes.
It was a vast criminal conspiracy, and they all got away with it even they should've been convicted of falsifying data and lying to the government.

>>15346346
I'm a different person.
The post-2000 data is now untrustworthy, because scientists were caught falsifying data and they wanted to claim that the earth was warming, even though the CO2 content of the atmosphere hasn't changed at all, and in some places is so low greenhouses actually have to pump in CO2 to increase plant growth (CO2 which comes from natural gas powered generators).
Also, the recent temperature increases are still not as much as the 1930s or the Medieval warm period.
Then climate scientists will talk about the "rate" of increasing, which is also false because ice core samples don't allow that level of granularity since they are thousands of years old.
It's all a huge grift perpetuated by climate scientists who want to keep their grant money, university departments, and cushy jobs.
These are people that should be working at Wendy's; instead, they're using falsified data to influence global politicians and authoritarians.

>>15345773
Are you suggesting that the raw data doesn't also show warming? Because they do. Raw station data is readily available online. I wonder why you don't post it.
Also interesting that you focus on a specific region when it's a obvious different regions are warming at different rates

>>15346354
>even though the CO2 content of the atmosphere hasn't changed at all
Are you legitimately retarded?
>Then climate scientists will talk about the "rate" of increasing, which is also false because ice core samples don't allow that level of granularity since they are thousands of years old.
They absolutely do have good enough resolution and accurately capture the CO2 concentration as measured by sensors in the ice core site.
If you don't know even the basic concepts about the topic maybe you should shut up.

>>15346354
>Also, the recent temperature increases are still not as much as the 1930s or the Medieval warm period.
>The post-2000 data is now untrustworthy
Demonstrably false. This is a flat earth tier argument that because you can't physically measure it yourself then the data is a conspiracy

>>15346365
>only 10,000 years
What a terrible sample size.
Here's 66,000,000 years of CO2 data.
As you can see, when there's an INCREASE in CO2, there's no ice at the poles (instead you'll find alligators and palm trees) and much more plant/animal growth that there is today.
I'd much rather live on a planet with 1.6% CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the 0.4% that exists today.

>>15346370
>claims that CO2 isn't changing
>is proven wrong
>moving the goalposts and ignoring everything about resolution
>talking about the planet when it was under a completely different oceanic and continental configuration
>ignoring the fact that at the end of the recent ice ages, even at the fastest rate, a 100ppm increase of CO2 took ~2000 years and we've surpassed that in 100 years
You don't know even the basic concepts of this

>>15346370
Also why are you comparing an ecosystem where the biosphere had grown and evolved in a steady state warm planet to rapid warming of an ecosystem where the biosphere has grown and evolved under a cooler steady state?
Absolutely pathetic

>>15346381
>adding more data isn't "moving the goalposts"
Kek, this is fun.
I actually like responding to trolling, it forces us to sharpen our arguments and learn the material better.

>>15346383
That doesn't make any sense. The amount of CO2 on the planet doesn't change, it only changes form (from free-floating in the atmosphere, to locked up in fossil fuel deposits).
By releasing MORE CO2, we're helping to avoid the next Ice Age, which would kill billions of people.
If the planet warms back up to where there's no more Ice on the poles, humanity will enter into a new age of prosperity and food security.

>>15346400
Don't squirm away. Answer the question.
>ice core samples don't allow that level of granularity since they are thousands of years old.
This is plain false and you ignored it.
>By releasing MORE CO2, we're helping to avoid the next Ice Age, which would kill billions of people.
If the planet warms back up to where there's no more Ice on the poles, humanity will enter into a new age of prosperity and food security.
Absolutely false. The Permian Triassic extinction was caused by massive CO2 increase due to flood basalt volcanism. This increase took millions of years and wiped out 1/3 of species. We have increased temperature by 1 degree in 100 years.

>>15346400
>learn the material better
Yeah it's clear you don't even know the basics if you claim ice cores don't have good enough resolution. Pretty emparassing.

>>15346268
Would you like to try again?

>>15340278
The facts are true but the story is fake.

>>15346400
>I actually like responding to trolling, it forces us to sharpen our arguments and learn the material better.
>If I keep entertaining morons by arguing and learning about a psychosis.

Never argue when you are never presented an argument.
global warming/climate change" is not an argument. It's an accurate description of a fantasy.

>>15346420

>If the planet warms back up to where there's no more Ice on the poles,

Tell me why Venus has the coldest north/south poles in the solar system besides pluto.

>>15346427
>b-but muh ice cores
Correlate the CO2 with temperature already you mentally ill, disingenuous scum. It's bad enough these green fags pollute the planet exponentially more by introducing other exotic materials besides petroleum based products, but you can't even prove what you intitally claimed by stating that

>hurr co2 rises with tempurature!

According to the graph...the exact fucking opposite could be the case because all you're doing is comparing numbers with other numbers. You aren't looking for the correlation. Maybe if you fags were actually "green" and self sufficient you would be lighting your own controlled fires occasionally and see that the CO2 comes after the heat of the flames.

Self-sufficiency is beyond these people though because at the end of the day they're dependents who have to prop up a story to sell their useless junk tech that politicians are all invested in. They treat carbon like mutually assured destruction in order to tax citizens more while giving them less. Oldest trick in the book, just ask any religion and their beliefs regarding "first sin".

>>15346460
>Correlate the CO2 with temperature already you mentally ill
hmm
>because all you're doing is comparing numbers with other numbers
It's actual a causal relationship since the gas properties of CO2 and its interactions with IR radiation are what causes the greenhouse effect. Now lets see you try and deny the measured properties of CO2.

>>15346460
>Never argue when you are never presented an argument.
You mean ignore and never engage with observational data? Because that's what you're doing

>>15339638
Did you seriously just link to Infowars

You have to be the dumbest motherfucker on this entire website, do you eat shit for breakfast or what

>>15346475
https://www.2degreesinstitute.org/
>SCIENCE ADVISORS
all white males
>BOARD OF DIRECTORS
all white

clearly this is some sort of racist bullshit organization and not even remotely diverse or trustworthy in any way, just a gang of white devils getting together to collude and lie

>>15346475
>He does it again, he posts descriptions in graph form

Wow, look at how much the CO2 rose due to the temperature!

>It's actual a causal relationship since the gas properties of CO2 and its interactions with IR radiation are what causes the greenhouse effect

It's obvious to the most casual observer that you're full of shit. Even a moron HVAC technician can properly explain how an insulator will never be the actual "cause" of an increase heat and how you'll still need to buy a boiler so you don't freeze in the winter believing blankets will save you.

>>15346480
>You mean ignore and never engage with observational data?
>The sky is blue!
>The grass is green
>I can describe an observation but never explain to you why or how that happens

Cool story bro. Now go pay your taxes so that the rich people can get those EV subsidy discounts.

>>15346488
>Wow, look at how much the CO2 rose due to the temperature!
>dude emissions aren't real even though their isotopic signatures show it
Great arguments going on here
>Even a moron HVAC technician can properly explain how an insulator will never be the actual "cause" of an increase heat
Because the greenhouse effect works by CO2 and other gasses re radiating solar and black body from the planet IR back to the planet. It's a pretty simple thing that's commonly taught in high school.
Y9ou are still not responding to your false claim that ice cores did not capture CO2 increase.

>>15346358
>Are you suggesting that the raw data doesn't also show warming?
No, I am stating that it shows warming inconveniently happening way before CO2 levels rose substantially, and that the real data does not fit the models used to invent the climate crisis. Neat how you have to suddenly jump to completely different data now, why is that? Hadcrut4 is not good now?

>>15346497
No, I am stating that it shows warming inconveniently happening way before CO2 levels rose substantially
That's blatantly false >>15346475
and shows deep ignorance if you're comparing global CO2 to regional climate in the US. Then claim that all data is false because of conspiracies.
>Neat how you have to suddenly jump to completely different data now, why is that? Hadcrut4 is not good now?
What? All of the temperature products show agreement? What's your point?

>>15346496
>dude emissions aren't real
Not what I said retard, try reading sometime

>Because the greenhouse effect works by CO2 and other gasses re radiating solar and black body from the planet IR back to the planet. It's a pretty simple thing that's commonly taught in high school.
Wonderful dummy, that's why I mentioned Venus having the coldest north and south poles next to Pluto. Can you explain why that is? Is it because of all that atmosphere and the suns inability to cut through it? Just as is the case on our planet where despite getting 24 hours of fucking sun at times during the year is still a frozen wasteland? Why doesn't CO2 work its magic more where there's more sun?

>Y9ou are still not responding to your false claim that ice cores did not capture CO2 increase. I'm not the original anon your responding to. The ice cores are completely irrelevant, you don't know the actual temperature it was because it's a fucking icecore sample you dipshit. There is still no actual correlation, all you know is the CO2 and today temperature. Which you then assume and fill in the blank for the past. As far as I'm concerned it went up because the temperature did, in fact there's more proof because literally anything that's combustible demonstrable shows that's the case.

>>15346488
Stop posting you dumb nigger. You are the entire reason anyone skeptical of climate hysteria is labelled as a moron. CO2 is not insulating, it is absorbing and radiating. The greenhouse effect is real, CO2 plays a tiny, irrelevant role in it, no amount of changing CO2 levels will ever have a significant impact on global temperature, and a tiny increase in global temperature does not have any negative effects.

>>15346504
>hat's blatantly false >>15346475
And yet you have to resort to fake data again. Why can't you support you claim using real data?
>if you're comparing global CO2 to regional climate in the US
We're not. But it is odd how that would be a problem, but using a single thermometer in Indonesia to represent the entire southern hemisphere is totally fine.

>>15346508
>Wonderful dummy, that's why I mentioned Venus having the coldest north and south poles next to Pluto.
That's cool, but since it's not the Earth it's entirely irrelevant here.
>The ice cores are completely irrelevant, you don't know the actual temperature it was because it's a fucking icecore sample you dipshit.
Again completely demonstrably false. Proxy data confirms it. Which you must believe in since you posted proxy data from the Cretaceous.
>>15346513
>The greenhouse effect is real, CO2 plays a tiny, irrelevant role in it, no amount of changing CO2 levels will ever have a significant impact on global temperature,
Demonstrably false again.
>>15346520
>Dude the data is fake because I say so even though the raw data shows the same warming temperature
>but using a single thermometer in Indonesia to represent the entire southern hemisphere is totally fine.
Why are you making shit up?

>>15346504
>starts temp graph in little ice age in order to create false perception of warming trend
why do you post the same intentionally misleading data over and over again?
is it because you're incapable of making an honest argument?
>berkeley
world headquarters of insane political activists, just least trustworthy source of information anywhere

>>15346543
>lets add a bunch of red to the recent end of the graph to make it look scary
you wouldn't need to engage in that type of dishonest manipulative behavior if you had any honest arguments to make.

>>15346513
>S-stop
You wimp. You infant. I curse your weak father.

>You are the entire reason anyone skeptical of climate hysteria is labelled as a moron.

Because unlike them they buy into the scam of actually entertaining the nonsense. I don't argue with cults, religious nutcases and people who cannot prove their own claims. I laugh at them and point out how they're wrong. Go unfuck yourself and get back to me when you actually want to start an argument instead of entertaining the lunacy of politicians.

>CO2 is not insulating, it is absorbing and radiating.

Yes yes I know it's that dualism that some kosher light switch Jew made up about light magically traveling and being "absorbed and then remitted" (somehow). If only you could empirically demonstrate that then that too would be great. Aren't you forgetting that other stuff like "constructive/destructive interference" that would probably be a really good thing to know about since your dealing with light? Oh right no it's the water vapor a car farts we gotta focus on, apologies.

>The greenhouse effect is real, CO2 plays a tiny, irrelevant role in it, no amount of changing CO2 levels will ever have a significant impact on global temperature, and a tiny increase in global temperature does not have any negative effects.
I think it's a lot easier to just laugh at them and call them wrong like they are, anon. Instead you invest all this time that in the end still justifies the straw grasping atomist and their incessant need to describe CO2 and climate change because it's the most popular psychosis. Afterall, just look at what they did after they described a virus that had a mear 98.2 percent chance survival rate.

Give them an inch and they will falsely reify miles.

>>15346543
>Demonstrably false again.
Yet you don't demonstrate it.
>Why are you making shit up?
Denying reality is not a productive strategy when you claim to be on the side of "science". Science is a process we use to understand reality.

>>15346552
>oy vey stop posting anti-semitic hate facts while I am well poisoning!111

>>15346546
>going to this this again when you get proven wrong
Curious you ignore the multiple charts that include data prior to the LIA.
>data is wrong because of the physical location of the group even though it’s irrelevant to the discussion of GIS and HADCRUT
Truly an intellectual giant here

>>15346552
>If only you could empirically demonstrate
>ignores empirical observational data demonstrating it
Lol

>>15346551
>arguing about colors
Great stuff

>>15346543
>>15346543
>That's cool, but since it's not the Earth it's entirely irrelevant here.
True, I mean Venus is not a planet that shares our heat source with exponentially worse "Greenhouse gasses" that would be an ideal indicator as to how they function or anything.

>Proxy data confirms it
No we cannot predict the past yet. We haven't synthesized wizard orbs yet.

>Which you must believe in since you posted proxy data from the Cretaceous.
I didn't post shit. I'm not an asshole here trying to convince people thermometers are really just flux capacitors in disguise.

>>15346561
>anti-semitic hate facts
>wave particle dualism
It's a fact, not a hate fact. Do you hate it anon?

>>15346567
>Dude I measured a shadow, shadows are real and muh hekin data is valid!
You're not fooling anyone. Nobody with half a brain is gong to purchase an electric rollerskate joke of a vehicle. And no amount of ice you drill will ever confirm what temperature it was 2000 years ago because it's fucking ice in the present being "below 32 degrees depending on salt content".


How did people/posters like this convince the population with such garbage rhetoric? It's laughably absurd some of the shit that comes out of your mouths that you just believe simply because some book learned retard parroted it to you in college. That shit isn't cheap and they clearly failed you miserably, I would ask for my money back.

>"""adjusted""" data
>projections proven wrong time after time
>fraud at the ipcc
>manipulation of review journals
>all ice will be gone by 2000, and 2005, and 2013, and 2020, 2030, says """experts"""
its not science at all, just cultists spewing lies.

>>15346582
>"Greenhouse gasses" that would be an ideal indicator as to how they function or anything
What's the Surface temperature at Venus?
Why do you try to make low temperatures in the upper part (140km) of the atmosphere as if it were surface temperatures?
Funny how you put absolute faith in in data from a probe in Venus but will refuse to accept basing light intensity measurements here on Earth.
Good stuff

>we cannot predict the past yet. We haven't synthesized wizard orbs yet.
Fuck off with this flat earther solipsism bullshit

>>15346605
>What's the Surface temperature at Venus?
Depends where you measure it

>Why do you try to make low temperatures in the upper part (140km) of the atmosphere as if it were surface temperatures?
To show they're not what's causing the heating

>Funny how you put absolute faith in in data from a probe in Venus but will refuse to accept basing light intensity measurements here on Earth.
Funny how you pointed that out and made everyone reading this doubt the validity of that too.

>Fuck off with this flat earther solipsism bullshit
You have a series of weather stations that only started showing up in the 1800's and none of them correlates temperature and Carbon dioxide. None of them can predict what causes either to change. All they do is measure it. Just like all a polish psychic does is predict the past.

>>15346638
fucking kek

>>15346638
>Depends where you measure it
Yes that's why I'm calling you out on claiming that surface temperatures in Venus were colder than the Earth when it was actually the uppermost part of the atmosphere.
Funny how you pointed that out and made everyone reading this doubt the validity of that too.
I don't doubt the validity of the Venus data, I do know you're purposely lying about what that data shows.
>You have a series of weather stations that only started showing up in the 1800's and none of them correlates temperature and Carbon dioxide.
But that's wrong as shown time and time again by the observed greenhouse effect and increasing temperatures due to increasing CO2

>>15340279
My claim is that his data is incongruent with what we see happening in the world around us. Meanwhile data such as this
>>15340006
IS congruent with what we see happening in the world around us. So it's very obvious that OPs data is false or has been misrepresented.

Does that make sense or is it too hard for your brain to understand?

>>15346675
>IS congruent with what we see happening in the world around us
No it isn't. It also is not congruent with accurate data like satellite data or argo.

>>15346460
>Venus has the coldest north/south poles in the solar system besides Pluto.
This is false and a simple search proves what you did wrong. Venus' poles are NOT the coldest in the solar system besides Pluto. 140 km up in the atmosphere, literally we measure space on Earth as beginning at 100 km, the temperature of Venus' atmosphere as being -157 degrees C. That is not, in any way shape or form, the coldest poles in the solar system but a description of the atmosphere far above the surface. Meanwhile its surface temperature is still measured at 700 degrees

>>15346671
>Yes that's why I'm calling you out on claiming that surface temperatures in Venus were colder than the Earth when it was actually the uppermost part of the atmosphere.
I was never specific saying "surface temp". Also really makes me think how greenhouse gasses are that cold despite the surface being so hot, indicating they are not the actually the source of the heat whatsoever.

>Funny how you pointed that out and made everyone reading this doubt the validity of that too.
This is a climate secularized metaphysics thread. Doubt is your only liberation from the scam.

>I don't doubt the validity of the Venus data, I do know you're purposely lying about what that data shows.
I'm not lying, I'm "accurately describing" using the data. See look how cold it is! Those temps prove that the greenhouse gas cause cooling, not heating. It was measured and set in stone using measures and numbers so how can you prove me wrong?

>by the observed greenhouse effect and increasing temperatures
"The sun" anon. "The sun" is the heat source and cause of the increasing tempurature. The gas just insulates that. For comparison using a real life example, you are never going to get a hot water heaters heating elements to produce hotter water by simply insulating the sides, the insulation PREVENTS LOSS. Furthermore the water..the medium itself will prevent the heater from going past 212 degrees.

>due to increasing CO2
Prove it. You won't because it's literally impossible. A fire doesn't work in reverse, numbskull.

>>15346679
>too hard for your brain to understand
Yup. Not surprising you don't get it.

>>15346679
>lying yet again

>>15346679
Hmm

>>15346699
>>15346741
>NOOOO THE DATA IS THE SAME
>shows graphs of the data being different
Hmmm....

>>15337076
I lived in Massachusetts as a kid and I recall one summer being 100+F sometime between 2002-2006.

>>15346745
NTA. They are, effectively, showing the same thing. Pretending someone is claiming they are literally point-for-point identical, or that it is somehow relevant, is just lying as you've already been shown to be doing.

How else do they perpetuate a HOAX like climate change, unless they are able to erase all contrary evidence? Cmon man, 10% for the big guy!

>>15346797
No, they are not. You can't claim X degrees of warming that is accelerating is supported by data showing both less warming, and the trend of warming declining.

>>15347000
The warming trend is clearly faster on satellite data though
Are you having a stroke?

>>15347005
>the opposite of reality is really true trust me
wut

>>15347005
NTA. He isn't having a stroke but he is incredibly stupid. I figured out what he's trying to argue, even though it's fucking retarded. He doesn't realize your chart >>15346741 ends in 2010, and is thus trying to argue "look see the average from 2000-2010 means climate change don't real".
>>15347000
>>15347022
See image. While estimates vary slightly due to differences in methodology, the trends are nonetheless present.
>inb4 models don't perfectly agree therefore wrong
>inb4 models which do perfectly agree are conspiracy
You're like an anti-honesty machine. I can only pray you're trolling.

>>15347031
>we can demand the total destruction of western society because we said there would be .6 degrees of warming
>but when there is actually only .3 degrees that means we were right and our fake data that says .6 degrees is really the same even though that is a 100% difference
>so let us totally destroy western civilization because our next 50 predictions will be right unlike the last 500!

>>15337085
>>15337084
>2019 has data on 2000 and 1999 does not have data on 2000
wild man

>>15337084
>>15337085
Man, the data really show how hot the weather can be

Just a small reminder. No matter how you faggots protect our Earth, you, all your descendants and all humanity will die. It's not "probably", it's 100%.

The Sun is already in the middle of its journey to death, half of its life gone. But we don't wait until it's dead, no. We die much earlier, even before white dwarf, even before fully bloomed red giant, even before it starts going giant. It gets hotter right now as I'm writing it. It will get so hot that all our oceans will evaporate, the atmosphere will be blown into space and Earth will look exactly like Mars. Oh by the way I'm pretty sure you know Mars looked like Earth previously. But uh oh what happened there?

Anyways good luck fighting inevitable.

>>15347005
there is no warming trend

>>15347064

>>15347031
>>inb4 models don't perfectly agree therefore wrong
You are now here.

>>15347137
>wrong isn't wrong because reasons

>>15347083
Oh shit we'll all be dead in 4 billion years? Might as well just sleep in my own shit.

>>15347031
Yeah but that graph you posted has UAH data which is Upper Atmosphere. The RSS is surface and it's virtually identical to the instrumental record.

>>15347306
Meant to say UAH means University of Alabama Huntsville and I confused it with their work on the upper troposphere and stratosphere data

it snowed this morning, first time since 1973 there was snow on april 12

>>15347233
No retard in 4 billion years the sun is dead.

>>15347720
oh only 1 billion years guess I better start living in a septic tank

>>15345027
I wonder how many of those are dedicated to influencing 4chan

>>15348331
No retard in 1 billion years oceans will evaporate. You need to draw the line somewhere and stop pretending you can change something.

>>15347163

>>15347163
>>15348574
D'awww look at them flail around for want of argument

>>15348421
Oh no in 10 years I'll be dead, better start injecting myself with hiv needles and eating human shit!

>>15343134
>It's been 20 years and his results have been replicated multiple times
That is hardly impressive if all you do is to apply the "correction curves" from >>15337098.

even if global warming were real, which is isn't
>oh no, the avaerage temperate is going to rise by 1.5ºC during my lifetime, how will i survive!!?!?!
wear cotton socks instead of wool
i dress pretty much the same no matter what the temp between 0ºC & 20ºC, if its below 0 i wear a hat, if its over 20 i take my jacket off

>>15341537
We literally saw a conspiracy of millions of scientists, doctors, nurses, politicians, and corporations about COVID-19 and the vaccines in this decade. If the pro-vaxxers were right about the lethality of SARS-CoV-2, China would have lost 50 million people in the past year. Clearly they were wrong, so "that would require a conspiracy of millions" is no longer a useful rebuttal.

>>15350163
Meds.

>>15350163
Absolutely, especially when it comes down to bullying, suppression of data, the risk of losing your job AND not being able to find another one.
"Climate change" is a con job, same as COVID-19, which was used to get Trump out of office and cause billions in economic damage.
Anytime the government is asking for more money, more power, or BOTH, be skeptical as fuck.

>>15347089
this pmt

>>15347499
> it snowed this morning, first time since 1973 there was snow on april 12
Earth is cooling down for years now ,every idiot can see that if he ignores mainstream. The blatant liers knows it, that why they changed the wording. Hope they will all shot.

>>15352047
That's one of the reasons why Globalists are making it so difficult for small farmers. They want more control, and they know that large farms/companies are more likely to be wealthier and make political contributions.
When I was growing up, there were THREE local farmers, all of whom had nice houses, and sent their kids to college. We would drive around every week during the summer and get fresh produce, pickles, tomato sauce, etc.
Today, there are NO small farms in my home town, as the government has made it defacto-illegal for them to operate profitably.

>>15337885
>climatologist
is there anyone on this globe who would voluntarily call himself a "climatlogist"?

>>15337098
that shows off the attempt at erasing the 1930s hot spell pretty clearly
>“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Reminder that "climate change" failed to fit into the "Symbolic order", failed to end the world (or to even exist at all, for that matter) in the year 2000, and has since been released into an increasingly psychotic form; its prophets now trying to measure it into being.

>>15337076
I don't know about america but in italy rivers are fucking drying up, and its fucking spring. It's not looking good and it definetly was never like this before.

>>15354055
Meds

>>15354170
lies

How can anyone still believe in this bullshit when every single independently verifiable prediction has turned out to be wrong?
It really is a cult. The date of their end of the world just keeps moving, but their certainty never goes down.

>>15346699
>>15346741
>After "temperature adjustment," of course.
Because thermometers are racist or something.

>>15354055
This. Once the poles mysteriously failed to melt like Al Gore predicted, it's now become dogma that climate change actually means the Earth will get colder and hotter at the same time, everywhere.

>>15352236
some people will do anything for money

>>15355905
Couldn't they just become prostitutes? It's a more prestigious profession.

currently, my country is cutting funds to nuclear plants and taking them off what is considered green energy.
Until green activists embrace nuclear, I will assume any climate alarmist reports, articles, and charts are lies and shilling for oil and green lobbying.

>>15356716
>climate alarmist reports, articles, and charts are lies and shilling for oil
Whenever they talk "muh climate change" oil prices go up and the rich people in government get richer.
Sure sounds like a scam.

>>15356716
germany shut down it's last nuclear power plants yesterday

>>15339991
>https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3469/2020/essd-12-3469-2020.html
Actually I did. The math looks impressive but its built on bullshit and mirrors. Moving temperature measurement sites, assuming error bands for a wide of variety of changes.

There are no error bands, no confidence levels that mean anything relative to the broad based assumptions made as input data.

Given the repercussions of the data on the global world this has to be the biggest con since creation. Its not that the math appears bad, its just the assumptions are lousy.

There are no confide

>>15345709
Why do you pretend that a temperature station in a "rural" area is automatically immune to heat island effects and bad siting?
Rural areas also have buildings, AC units, power transformers, sun traps, etc that cause significant local changes in recorded temperatures.

https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf

>>15358287

>>15358296

>>15354055
>>15355317
More like :
>Extreme events will get worse!
- Actually, they haven't. Hurricanes aren't more powerful than Galveston in the 1920s. They cause more death/damage because there's more people on the planet.
- Furthermore, SE Asia Monsoons have gotten better and less extreme.
>It will lead to mass extinction and crop failure!
- Not really, animal extinction is due to people taking over more place, like burning the Rain Forest in Brazil to make room for cattle grazing. So that's a separate issue.
>Those 1 out of a century storms are happening every year!
- They're not.
>The winters will be colder and the summers will be hotter
- Nope, not happening
>Glaciers will melt
- Not happening on a global level, and there are many glaciers that are adding ice. https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/

The whole thing is a grift. Politicians/bureaucrats/climate scientists, all with a vested interest in perpetuating the scam.
Anyone who comes out again it is silenced and cancelled.

>>15358287
>>15358296
>>15358310
Just one of the many techniques employed by "scientists" to create false data that supports the global warming narrative.

>>15340260

>>15359303
>No matter what the context, they will always come up with a lie that "proves" global warming is real.
>They have to lie, because global warming is fake.

>>15359204
>there are many glaciers that are adding ice
yeah, adding ice to the oceans.

I wonder what makes a person write about "many glaciers adding ice" and then post a source that clearly states
>most glaciers are receding

>>15347083
Nobody gives a fuck if humanity will die in 4,000,000,000 years or even 4,000,000. People care about their own lifetimes and the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren you fuck.

>>15359358
Well on that timescale there's literally nothing to worry about from climate change.

>>15359358
You look angry because stupid. It's totally fine to care about yourself and your family, I do as well. However as an adult you should not feel like a kid in front of a class who expects a good mark and tell everyone what they want to hear. No need to hit your chest and shout how you are going to save the earth or other bullshit. Just tell the truth like I do and like you just did to me. You care about yourself, that's it.
Sorry for my English, I'm from Europe.

>>15358287
>Heartland institute
Lol
Lmao

>>15358225
>the math checks out but I’ll just assume it’s wrong
Good stuff

>>15360242
He said it "looks" impressive. It's just an illusion meant to dupe people like you.

>>15360231
How about you address the content/findings rather than attacking the source?

>>15359204
>They cause more death/damage because there's more people on the planet.
Lmao they don't even cause more death. Deaths from extreme weather events are miniscule compared to +100 years ago despite the Earth having 10x as many people, because we have better advance warning of extreme weather, etc.
They cause more economic damage ofc because more of the planet has been built on, there is more extant infrastructure to be damaged, but that's a different story.

>>15361413
academics are all hopelessly dishonest political activists posing as objective scientists.

>>15340004
Oil companies invented the idea of climate change and have been on the front line of "researching" it since the beginning which has resulted in them being the greatest beneficiaries of the green revolution subsidies.

>>15337885
How is any climate change deniallism not run by off-the-meds schizos and right wing shills? Those dingdongs deliberately lie and push agendas to fulfill their selfengorged egos or psychosis. No one with an ounce of good faith or actual working mind doubts the basic facts.

P.s. lots of these people are also the ones pushing flat eart theories, fake space etc. It's mental disease at its finest

>>15340004
Glad to see rational /sci/ anons

>>15340279
Yeah just like they adapt to volcano events, asteroids, earthquakes or any rapidly changing, irreversible environmental process. Also all extinction events are hoax pushed by purple hair twitterinas and funded by soros hairspray from jet planes in the sky. Anyways here's a link where you can get my testicle pills

>>15361812
>Glad to see rational /sci/ anons
Is it perfectly rational to assume that climate is the only thing that could be driving migration and displacement of species when overfishing, overgrazing, pollution, land use changes etc all have arguably stronger impacts in many cases?

>>15337076
This is why we need Propertarianism. James Hansen and his ilk should be in prison.

imagining doomsday scenarios is part of the savior complex mental illness

>>15340004
>Adelie penguins, which are an arctic species
there are no penguins in the northern hemisphere
>are dying and being replaced by gentoo penguins, which are subarctic, because the sea ice they depend on is shrinking

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/sea-ice-antarctic
>From the start of satellite observations in 1979 to 2014, total Antarctic sea ice increased by about 1 percent per decade.

>>15358310
>Approximately 90 percent of the USHCN stations failed to meet the NWS’s own siting requirements,
which stipulate that stations must be 30 meters (100 feet) or more away from an artificial or radiating / reflecting heat source

>>15367848
>bro it's totally the atmospheric warming bro it's the greenhouse effect bro it isn't land use changes bro heat island effect is accounted for bro trust me bro

>>15367866
>2022_Surface_Station_Report
hadn't read this before but its exactly what you'd expect from climate cultists. data thats deliberately completely useless due to idiocy in site placement and maintenance. perfect if you want to lie about temperatures being hotter than they are.

>>15337076
can someone explain how the greenhouse effect works with CO2?

wouldnt the CO2 reflect more light than usual as well as keeping the light that does make it into the atmosphere a little bit longer?

>>15367866
People who say it's "accounted for" mysteriously forget that the "accounting" means applying a WARMING constant to modern urban heat island temps, and a COOLING constant to past temps without urban interference. They cannot square that circle without lying.

>>15368078
One of the most well-known effects of CO2 is stratospheric cooling due to reflecting sunlight.

>>15337076
You need to stop thinking and trust the experts. They are scientists and you are not.

>>15352169
lmao 2.25 trillion kilos of grain annually and ppl think we're on the verge of starvation from overpopulation. 3500 calories in a kilo of grain. adds up to 2700 calories per person per day, from grain crops alone.

>>15369387
*picture of obese negress complaining that she is on the verge of starvation*

Scientifically speaking, why does man-made climate change only exist if you lie about it?

>>15368030
You can see this by how shamefully they closed down hundreds of stations after Anthony Watts publicly posted the photographs of where their thermometers were sited.

>>15372143
But they didn't throw out the data those stations had gathered - that data is still part of the temperature record used to "prove" a warming trend

>>15340566
except new liberalism was created by the same bourgeois revolutionists who created classical liberalism

global warming is fake

>>15377243
Amazing how easily the raw data BTFOs the narrative. That's why governments fight so hard to forbid people from seeing it.

>claims global warming's fake
>posts trend from a single station
Let me recommend you some critical background reading:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/global

>>15343519
when i was a child, winter lasted 3+months in my country. Now it's two weeks and then comes back for two days here and there

>>15377243
>a single station

>>15378621
>anecdotes from my unreliable memories are evidence

>>15337076
Reminder that if the CO2 actually has an insulating effect, it should stabilize the temperature, not increase it.

>>15379054
>filtered by 19th century thermodynamics
Many such cases

>>15337084
>>15337085
>change the mean
>deviation from the mean changes
ZOMG ITS DA JOOS

>>15380465
nobody mentioned jews except yourself