/sci/ - Science & Math

The Science...
Has changed?

>>15459250
shills may go home?

>>15459250
cute but that's for the USA. rest of the world suffers

>>15459250
>bets his life on a dead cat bounce

>>15459275
Global warming has always been a hoax

>>15459490
rest of the world will always suffer

>>15459250
This is bad news, it means the instruments NOAA use are calibrated incorrectly. That or somebody is hacking the database

>>15459250
>NOAA has measured no increase at a-

>>15460316
increasing urbanization distorts measurements. if you stick to remote locations then temperature trends even out.

>natural gases are le bad because... THEY JUST ARE OK?

>>15459250
That is good news, thanks for posting it

>>15459250
The globalists changed the verbiage from "global warming" to "climate change," which isn't defined and doesn't mean anything.
The climate changes more from sun cycles than it does from Human activity. Humans didn't cause the Ice Ages that happened every 70,000-100,000 years like clockwork for millions of years.

That's why they say things like "Weather is becoming more extreme!" (even though it isn't.)

>>15461155
This.
Government science, not a thing

>>15459250
source?
>no source
fake & gay

>>15461155
>globalists changed the verbiage from "global warming" to "climate change"
>globalists

>>15461564
yes, globohomo

>>15461155
>>15461636
Exactly. The term "climate change" has been around since the 1970s. Both sides of globalists change the language whenever one is in or out of favor with the public, or simply when we get tired of hearing about it because none of the predictions of climatologist have come true.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
https://www.dictionary.com/e/new-words-surrounding-climate-change/

>>15460323
Thanks for demonstrating how climate soientists don't understand how to analyze data.

>>15461564
Wikipedia confirms that climate change became more common verbiage in the 2000s. This implies that republicans were able to influence what jargon liberal scientists used in their publications. In fact, a republican strategist was able to convince the liberal scientific consensus to soften their language in scientific publications. Interesting. What do you make of this? Why would the liberal scientists follow in tow with a republican political strategist telling them to soften their language?

>>15461809
> many words
politicians say what globohomo tell them to say. in democracy people chose only color of condom with which they will be fucked by globohomo dick. "republican" is only a color and flavor of condom, like blue with banana smell.

>15461909
Stfu schizo nobody is talking to you. The adults are talking

>>15461917
good to see how you shills play poltards, your reaction always gives you away. your glow becomes blaze

>>15461951
>data from a single site in a cherry-picked time span

>>15462093
Cute sudden jump around 2010. Seems like your "recalibration" worked.

>>15460323
OMG WE'RE HEATING UP!!!

>>15462100
No we're not, these are fractal. Small waves go up, then down. Bigger waves do the same and so on.

Climate change is being used as a tool to control and scare the masses.

>>15462096
>get presented with data that disproves him
>just claim it’s fake
Amazing arguments happening here

>>15462109
The data isn't fake. It's very real insofar that it got recalibrated. You don't actually think that's a natural spike do you?

>>15459490
The rest of the world is not the USA's problem. Statists want to control everyone and everything, therefore they have created excuses to interfere with out lives.

>>15462114
oh so you’re claiming it’s a conspiracy when the data proves you wrong
Lmao even
Keep those great arguments coming

>>15462093
What are you predictions that will occur as a result of increased temperature, that will occur no later than 2100?

How do these predictions justify tyranny?

>>15462124
I understand why you consistently put words in my mouth. Your kind are habitual liars. It's like second nature to you. I don't fault you for it any more than I fault a scorpion stinging a frog, you can't help it. I just want others to recognize you for what to are.

>>15462131
How is that relevant to the data? Your lolbertarian ramblings have nothing to do with the science

>>15462136
So the data in the OP that goes into the global temperature record is not wrong but the global record has been tampered with in some mysterious way? Never mind that satellite data and surface data are in agreement. Nope, it’s a conspiracy.

>>15462142
If you keep putting words in my mouth you might convince yourself that I'm wrong. But I, as well as others, see through your lies.

>>15462145
You’ve still failed to have any arguments beyond the data is fake. You’ve presented zero data or evidence

>>15462142
So just to be clear. You agree there's a sudden spike in the data. You also think this accurately reflects Earth's temperature, that is that it oscillates with a gradual increase for decades, suddenly jumps up seemingly instantaneously and then oscillates again with near constancy. And you think suggesting this is caused by the calibration of equipment is conspiratorial? You're either legitimately brain dead or a lying shill.

>>15462138
It isn't, but narssasistic climate alarmists & politicians who want to be seen as a hero in action, claim the data is a reason to interfere with our lives even more than currently.

>ICE car bans by 2030
>meat restriction policies
>restriction of movement in cities

I don't think that any level of climate change could justify doing things to people without their consent.

>>15462093
> data
the only data one needs is to know that government is faggot

>>15462138
so you're fine with ignoring the data? glad we've struck an accord.

>>15462151
>I'm making a baseless assumption that the data has been tempered and it can't possibly reflect real temperatures.
Yes it's conspiratorial. 2015-2016 were characterized by rapid warming partly due to the strong El Nino those years. Surely you'd be able to produce raw data that proves it,
but since I know you won't do that I already did and surprise the raw data not only shows the same results but it overestimated warming

>a particularly sharp increase in temperature is caused by a particularly strong warming
you're definitely a paid shill, because that's not an answer.

>>15462217
The raw data is freely available and I plotted it for you since claimed it should show not have that sudden warming but you won't actually show it.
What? now way it shows the same trend? You aren't lying right anon? you told me the raw data would show the truth.

>>15462230
hey anon, if a device is calibrated wrong, its raw data is also wrong. dummy.

>>15462234
>still making baseless assumptions and claims about instrument calibrations when the data proved him wrong twice
Damn this conspiracy goes all the way down to the equipment makers? That’s crazy man.

>>15462239
>>15462206
>quarter of a degree adjustment that actually reduces the warming trend
Those scientists should stick with the raw data of they’re such alarmists. You’re not cherry picking time spans again aren’t you?

>>15462241
Hi, see >>15462156
Do you believe that effects of climate change have the potential to be bad such that you believe it justifiable to do things outlined?

This is why I am opposed to climate stuff, it all seems to be a screen used to hide the real motivation of controlling others.

>>15462241
>people who make equipment are the ones who calibrate it
you're not very smart, are you?

>>15462258
>no you don’t understand it was revealed to me in a dream that the equipment is mis calibrated
Keep this going it’s pretty funny

>>15462239

>>15462248
The data I copied definitely cherry picked the time span to show the time when the difference between datasets yields the parabola which suggests data tampering. Are you stupid?

>>15462270
>>15462276
JPG version

>>15462241
> anime pic
> conspiracy
shill

>>15462287
I'm ignoring that this is literally some pdf made by a rando with no training in the subject
>satellite data is a "pure measurement"
Nonsense. Satellite measurements are based on emission spectra of oxygen. Not that the data is wrong, but the published uncertainties are much greater than surface measurements and need constant adjustments. That satellite is not in geostationary orbit and the procedures to get a temperature estimate for a given swath of readings are very complex. Claiming satellite data has the least adjustments is factually incorrect.
He either doesn't know this because he's a rando or he's purposely misrepresenting the data. This is ignorance bordering on negligence. (>>15462147)
>GISS temperature adjustments
Already went through this but the urban island heat effect adjustments are a quarter of a degree and the raw data actually shows a larger warming trend after 2000 and he seems confused about regional datasets and global ones. Again, I'm curious why he chose to stop the graph after the year 2000, what could be his motive? hmmm
>ice cores
Again either ignorance or malicious misrepresentation. The trigger of the interglacial periods are driven by insolation changes due to Milankovich cycles. The climate after is driven by CO2 by the greenhouse effect. This is an incontrovertible property of CO2 that has been measured in experiments and by direct measurements of the incoming clear sky radiation of the atmosphere.

>>15462399
GISS temp with included data post 2000, which he had access to but chose to exclude

>>15462402
>source: NASA
a government propaganda agency

>>15461803
One of these two pictures clearly fits better

>>15459490
>But how can the USA be unaffected-
HAARP

>>15461564
despite your dishonest hinting, this guy did not invent the term and did not manage to get the repubs to use it. it's a nobody accidentally being on record trying to make his party change terminology and failing, but being documented in the process so nitwits like you can crow about it.

>>15461809
they have no response to this. you pwned their argument so hard that they're in damage control now.

>>15459250
>NOAA has measured no increase at all in temperature since 2005.
all that screaming by greta the terrible has protected us.

>>15463404
trust the sºyence!!!!

>boomers pumping carbon into the air = good
why do climate deniers simp for retarded ass boomers so much

>>15459490
>cute but that's for the USA. rest of the world suffers
Weird how the world temperature doesn't seem to be affect the USA. It's almost as if someone is lying. My money's on the people who have been constantly telling me the world is 10 years from climate catastrophe since 1988.

>>15465674
>You know who's to blame, goyim: the BOOMERS!

>>15465674
> climate denier
are you sin denier, shill?

>>15462255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glmcMeTVIIQ

>>15465471
Trust the anon

>>15465724
>I hate 4chan
why are you here?

>>15465856
perhaps a financial incentive

>>15459250
That is good news, nice to see some someone being honest about the fact that we live on the most wonderful planet in the entire universe, which has supported life for billions of years and that slight variations in extremely minor atmospheric gasses will never make any impact of the habitability of our paradise.

>>15462308
> anime pic
HELLO FELLOW 4CHANNERS, I AM ONE OF YOU AND AM TOTALLY NOT A PAID WEF SHILL
*anime.jpg*

>>15459250
if global warming were real then it should be accelerating as the atmospheric co2 level rises. instead the temperatures are increasing at all.

How weird is it that the people who claim to be concerned about the environment chimp out in massive fits of rage when they see good news about the environment?

>>15461564
>>15461809
KEKK. Well done anon, you got him in a trap.

>>15470315
samefag.

>>15470401
not me. the shills are out in full force

>>15470407
not me. shills are onto me.

>>15470576 (me)
oh no, the shills are trying to steal my identity.

>>15470407
> me
lol

>>15470583
> my
this is shills

>>15470585
>>15470587
the shill's afraid. good.

>>15470596
>>15470585
STOP PRETENDING TO BE ME IT ISN'T FUNNY

>>15470614
> me
Shills cannot avoid using Is

>>15470596
thanks for spreading the message

>>15470620
You will never be sentient, shill.

>>15470625
only you care about me, shill. is it love?

>>15462230
How is there basically no global warming until 1980?

>>15470785
because sun activity dropped in 1940-1975

>>15470785
They switched to different instruments which measure hotter due to error.

>>15459250
freeman dyson said global warming research is plagued by bad science

>>15459250
Why are you only measuring since 2005?

Also, if the temperature isn't rising why are plants and animals migrating toward the poles? Why are deserts expanding? Why are glaciers melting? Why are plants blooming earlier each year?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-species-are-shifting-toward-the-poles/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/desertification
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56921164
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-flowering-a-month-earlier-heres-what-it-could-mean-for-pollinating-insects-176324

Sounds like you're lying and using a manipulative graph to do it.

>>15471071
>Sounds like you're lying and using a manipulative graph to do it.
Says the guy posting pop-soi MSM drivel lmao

>>15471071
>Sounds like you're lying and using a manipulative graph to do it.
big words, coming from the camp that does this

>>15465721
There should be no laws forcing seat belts to be worn, or be present in cars.

You are a tyrant for forcing you will upon others, regardless how nice you may feel you are trying to be.

In the case of seat belts specifically: the only person who looses out when not wearing a seat belt is the one not wearing it.

>>15471071
>Why are plants blooming earlier each year?
they aren't, I track trillium specifically because they're indicative of the morel harvest, I know where all the earliest blossoming trillium in my forest are and they've been opening right around St. Patrick's day since before the turn of the century. Only zoomers are naïve and wet behind the ears enough to fall for the global warming hoax

>>15462093
DATA FROM 1850 WAS SO FUCKING ACCURATE AND RELIABLE WHEN WE HAVE TO SPEND $500 FOR A THERMOMETER THAT DOESN'T DEVIATE MORE THAN 0.1C EVERY 20C

>>15471640
1850 was the little ice age

>>15459250
>2005
#oddlyspecific

>>15472872
Ah I see what you mean. Every time they try to fraudulently increase the temperatures with instrument tampering it shows a plateau, so they need to do more fraud every few years to make it seem to be increasing when in reality it's plateaued for 20-30 years.

>>15460323
You'd have been as well off if you'd drawn the line properly.

>>15472988
He can't because global warmists are incapable of doing anything truthful.

>>15463803
>One of these two pictures clearly fits better
But neither are a good fit. The trend line is slightly upward, mush leas so than in your first image. Getting it right means 4chan morons are going to have a harder time disputing you.

>>15472994
The problem is that if he were to speak truthfully then people would notice how weak the trend is. What he wants to provoke is fear in a gullible audience, rather than to show a natural climatic cycle happening without issue.

>>15464170
Luntz is not "a nobody," he's a fairly influential and well known player in GOP politics. You not knowing who he is does not mean he's not somebody influential.

>>15472997
Conspiracy theories belong on /x/

>>15472992
But a truthful graph still shows a warming trend. Just not the stupids one he created by doing the trend line wrong.

>>15473002
A weak, natural one. Nothing to be alarmed over nor to blame a harmless invisible gas for. He needs the line to be drastic because fraud is the only defense for warmism.

>>15472996
The trend is consistently upward, though not as steep as what he drew. You can argue what is causing it, but the trend line is real.

>>15472998
Luntz being an influential GOP strategist and advisor is not a conspiracy theory. He is. That is a fact, whatever you think about whether he tried to make "climate change" a thing, or whether he was responsible for it or it emerged coincident with his advice.

>>15473007
Again, he's promoting his religion not trying to tell the truth. He has to lie because the truth disagrees with him. It's not an honest mistake.

>>15473005
Doesn't matter, the trend has been consistent enough for long enough that we probably ought to do something about it if we can. If it is a natural trend, and it may be, it will still fuck us over if it continues. If it is natural, we ought to be looking into some geoengineering solutions. If it is being caused by CO2 (whether CO2 is invisible or not has nothing to do with anything, by the way, not sure why you brought that irrelevant detail into the conversation) then finding ways to mitigate COC2 release would be a fine idea -- in the short term, that would require building more nuclear plants, though, and greenies don't want to do THAT.

>>15473019
>because line go up after cooling period line will go up forever
>we must destroy the climate to stop this
You are a dangerous cultist.

>>15473015
I don't know if it was honest or not -- he may be a liar, or he may just not know how to draw a trend line properly.
But either way, the trend is still upwards, and still has been consistently upwards for some time.

>>15473020
Which cooling period was that?

>>15473023
The one that reached its nadir in the 1970s.

>>15473010
no he isn't, luntz is a homosexual jew who works for fox news, which is a foreign owned globohomo controlled opposition outlet.

>>15473010
>Luntz being an influential GOP strategist and advisor is not a conspiracy theory. He is. That is a fact, whatever you think about whether he tried to make "climate change" a thing, or whether he was responsible for it or it emerged coincident with his advice.
can you address this post?
>>15461809
>Wikipedia confirms that climate change became more common verbiage in the 2000s. This implies that republicans were able to influence what jargon liberal scientists used in their publications. In fact, a republican strategist was able to convince the liberal scientific consensus to soften their language in scientific publications. Interesting. What do you make of this? Why would the liberal scientists follow in tow with a republican political strategist telling them to soften their language?

Guys, this argument is so dead and buried that even oil companies admit it.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/group-reports/bp-climate-policy-positions.pdf

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/advancing-climate-solutions

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/our-climate-target.html

When even the biggest polluters admit it you know shit's real. All that exists on the denialist side is idiots and cranks

temperature of what?

>>15474030
there's no man made climate change

>>15474030
>Billion dollar conglomerate corporations propose an opinion that earns them government handouts.
Truly groundbreaking revelation.

>>15474030
Obviously we shouldn't trust the corporate narrative right?

>>15474120
Gotta trust Wall Street, the would never lie

>>15472996
>talking about honesty when you’re focusing on a specific time span in a specific region and say there’s no warning

>>15459250
DELETE THIS RACIST THREAD!

>>15474959
Good news! If we subtract the "corrections" that the climate scientists have been making to the raw global temperature data, 100% of the warming disappears!

>>15474982

>>15474982

>>15474982
>Good news! If we subtract the "corrections" that the climate scientists have been making to the raw global temperature data, 100% of the warming disappears!
Yeah when you do math wrong the results mean what I want them to mean! Why by my calculations the bank owes me billions!

>>15475616
sure is a shame that the global warming hysterics and propagandists who fraudulently pose as scientists have spent the past 3 decades muddying the waters by "adjusting" (AKA faking) the temperate record in order to fit their greedy political agenda

>>15476252
Oh wow you went through the math and found something fradulent with the adjustments? By all means please share your mathematical analysis, formulas, and weights.

>>15475244
global warming is fake af
they just changed temperatures from the past to make the present look warmer. the whole thing is a big hoax

>>15471640
Wouldnt the data be jumping around far more if this were the case instead of being consistently lower further back in time?

>>15476270
see >>15475244

>>15478201
see >>15475616

>>15459250
Phew. I'm so glad the Earth is going to be alright.

>>15477347
the little ice age was still ongoing in 1850

>>15479114
Welp how depressing. I wonder (((who))) could be behind this.

>>15480182
scientists are all liars, they hate data and they hate the real world because they were born losers and ended up as nerds instead of someone decent. so they want to control and change everything and they don't care if that means lying, because their who lives are lies, they justify their existence with imaginary, nonexistent high iqs because they have nothing tangible with which to justify themselves

>>15462230
5 websites show 5 different temperatures in my town right now and I am supposed to believe measurements in 1900s are correct?

>>15480534
It's the opposite. Measurements were better back then because they used precisely volume calibrated mercury thermometers based on the expansion of mercury metal under heat (which never changes). Now they use electronic thermometers which are notoriously unreliable.

>>15480554
so you are saying that scientists today are more stupid?

>>15465688
Climate change is y2k for liberals, but it never reaches the actual date so they get to continue obsessing over it indefinitely.

>>15477268
The corrections actually lessen the warming trend in the raw data by you keep ignoring that fact

>>15480309
>they hate data

>>15459250
That is good news, what a relief to know that global warming isn't happening the way some of the scientists have been predicting for the past 4 decades. I guess those scientists who've dedicated their careers to creating and exacerbating global warming hysteria have wasted their entire lives without accomplishing anything worth while, what a bunch of idiots. everyone thinks scientists are smart, but clearly theres a lot of stupid ones too

>>15461564
>(((frank luntz))) isn't a globalist
dude worked for fox news, a multinational globalist megacorp that pushed globalist rhetoric and narratives

>>15459250
CO2 lags temperature change. Warmer water holds less gas than cold water. As earth temp. increases, more gas (including CO2) evolves out of the oceans. CO2 is more a symptom of changing temperatures, not a primary cause.

>>15480592
there is no warming trend, global warming is a false narrative

>>15459250
Global warming was just a rue to distract us from plastics, pesticides, and other dangerous substances the power that be are poisoning us with

>>15482903
nope, it's about fossil fuelss, shill, about preventing "development" of shithole countries.

>>15459250
Is that ocean temperature? Heating up the oceans would take a huge amount of energy so that might be why the temperature hasn't really changed

Pic related is a graph of surface air temperature, and you can see the rise

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

>>15483217
> Wikipedia
globohomo propaganda outlet

>>15483212
That makes sense though
fossil fuels shouldn't be wasted on thirdies, they should be used exclusively for important things that matter.

>>15483217
Those human drivers are actually metal based chemicals and plastic vapors not cow farts
actually there are less farting cows in the US then there was before colonialism. Not even half as many as there use to be.

>>15483551
remove ze cows
price of meat skyrockets
eat ze bugs
ez pz

>>15459250
Friend
Taxes are good
Think of the children

>>15459303
>shills may go home?
Nah, they'll invent another cope
Imagine thinking that they'd let their jobs go

>>15460958
Post hot Gretas

>>15483570
but why? why do they hate cows?
personally I prefer sheep, but still cows do nothing impactful.

>>15483217
Oh god friend, ocean temps are even worse. The ocean is the #1 heat sink for global warming.

>>15483643
lmfao

>>15483643
literally looks like it's penciled in by a kid lol

Daily reminder that we have known for quite some time the "climate scientists" are outright fabricating their global temperature data.

This is a cult, and when reality does not match their belief system, they simply lie about reality.

>>15484200
It's funny how much the shill seethes when he sees that pic. He can't refute it so he posts a made up graph claiming the opposite.

>>15459250
how come air plane pollution is never brought up. I don't think they would ever question that industry, even during the pandemic they would not stop flying planes and transporting viruses around. That's like never leaving my home to be safe from a virus but inviting someone with the virus in to my home. I struggle to understand humans

>>15484344
They want to shut down air travel too, but not for rich people.

>>15459250
how dare you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

>>15484344
schizophrenia

>>15484350
greta flys from climate conference to climate conference in a private jet to complain about co2

>>15460323
/biz/ tier technical analysis

>climate will be of mooning any day now ser, scoop cheapies now!!!!

>>15484350
and they are right about this, you goys live way tooo good

>>15459490
>"global warming"
>but this gigantic industrialized region of the planet is not affected

I don't even know if leftists are trolling or just retarded.

>>15474030
This might be hard for a subhuman leftist like you to understand but oil companies are not totaly against the green agenda because they will sell less product at higher costs or move into the green market where they get ESG infinte money from your taxes. Either way they still get their money but we get fucked.

>>15484200
>regional data blatant mislabeled as global and compared to global parameters
Only denier retards fall for this shit

>>15462399
>the urban island heat effect adjustments are a quarter of a degree
I doubt that

>>15484677

>>15485139
>global warming isn't global
BTW the US temperature data is what's used to make your hockey stick fraud. Land temperature data in countries with no weather stations is made up using US-derived models.

>>15462248
>>15462399
Funny that the jannies finally deleted and banned that bot poster.

>>15485726
>I don’t understand the methodology so I’ll just state it’s wrong.
God you’re retarded. Certain regions are warming at different rates.
The hockey stick graphs use proxy data and not instrumental data so it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>15485771
lmao

>>15485771
Hey shill, maybe if you got new images people wouldn't know it was you.

>>15485781
>no arguments

>>15485842
wrong. "shill" simply means paid globohomo deceiver, which is argument, faggot.

>>15485771
>Gets shown that his data are fake.
>Tries to deny it by just posting his fake data again.
You seem to be stuck in a loop.

>>15486617
"Yeah when you do math wrong the results mean what I want them to mean! Why by my calculations the bank owes me billions!"
He isn't the one stuck in a loop. You haven't shown anything. You just think "doing the math right means fake" because it doesn't agree with you.

>>15486622
>NO, THE ARCTIC REALLY WAS ICE-FREE BY 2013, AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE RACIST!
Seriously, you are in a cult.

>>15486627
Still not seeing your actually showing any fraudulent math. Probably because you can't do math, hence the "math mean fraud unga bunga" thing you do

>>15486630
Sorry, so you're saying the arctic was in fact ice-free by 2013 as the experts in climate science predicted using their not-at-all-fraudulent math?
Just answer yes or no. It will be an honesty test, which you will of course fail.

>>15486635
Source or fuck off.

If it's al gore you need to be banned for life.

>>15486639
That's not a yes or no answer.

>>15486641
>That's not a yes or no answer.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

You still haven't posted a source. You still haven't posted any math. Everyone but you can see that you're full of shit and your sole redeeming quality is how easy you are to mock

>>15486639
>Source? You don't have a source! Give me your source!

Maslowski, Wieslaw, et al. "The future of Arctic sea ice." Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 40 (2012): 639.

Oh shit, you little bitch, now what will you do?

I think denial is your only remaining option. Flip to that page and simply pretend you aren't seeing what you're looking at.

>>15486665
>Oh shit, you little bitch, now what will you do?
Read it. CTRL+F 2013, no results.
Point out you're full of shit.
>I think denial is your only remaining option. Flip to that page and simply pretend you aren't seeing what you're looking at.
Option C. Quote the study you cited further demonstrating how full of shit you are.
"Models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) and in CMIP3 suggest the reduction of sea ice cover to an almost ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by the end of this century ( Johannessen et al. 2004, Zhang & Walsh 2006), and by 2040 in the most extreme predictions (e.g., Holland et al. 2006)."
Hm. Nope, not 2013.

Or do you genuinely not understand the difference between linear trends and models? If so, oh my lol my sides

>>15486674
>I went with denial.
I knew you would, but everyone else reading this thread will see how dishonest you are.
I don't need to convince a paid kike shill like you. I just need to show everyone how you lie constantly.

>>15486680
>Linear trends
I went with predicting exactly how you'd lie. ez

>>15486682
lmao

>>15462241
>baseless assumptions

>>15459250
>no links/source
No bump

>>15487311
the source is on the graphic

>>15462241
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/23/australia-wide-assessment-climate-change-or-instrument-change/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/14/bureau-releases-limited-parallel-data-from-brisbane-airport/

>>15486680
oh shit scientists said we'd have no more ice caps 7 years ago. why did they lie

>>15459250
Or maybe, you know, earth isn't just a greenhouse, its more complicated than that.

>>15486680
>paper says end of the century
>I’ll just intentionally misread the graph and pretend no one will notice

>>15459490
Where the heck's the details in the argument? The rest of the world suffers? Huh?

>>15487948
thats what they're paid to do

>>15486682
He fuckin' rekt you, dude.

>>15488455
>I don't know how to read a graph.

>>15488845
you don't

>>15475244
the peak on the 2016 chart took place after the 1999 ends, which uses a circled midway point on a line that continues upward beyond the time the chart covers.

Easy mistake to make for someone who doesn't understand how graphs or time work, like in general.... shill your disinformation elsewhere, maybe fb is more your pace.

>>15480309
>be me
>simping for a girl
>she preferred a nerd over me
>big brain people make money now, and I'm
>stuck being a fry cook
>things I can't understand infuriate me,
>as I know I can never truly comprehend them
>I actively absorb lies from my poor media diet
>I regurgitate lie on command like a dog-whistle.
>my unwillingness to expand my own understanding of the world means every viewpoint other than my own must be wrong
>The world is a big scary place.

>>15490051
>There's totally no reason at all to ask why fixed data points are being completely altered after the fact, goyim!

>>15490059
>>I actively absorb lies from my poor media diet
>>I regurgitate lie on command like a dog-whistle.
Yeah climate change cultists are a sad bunch. All they know is what the lying media feeds them.

>>15480101
Its amazing that there are so many people who wish the exact opposite.

>>15490667
Some people just seem to want everything to be negative. It's very bizarre.

>>15490764
soientists make up fake problems in order to use the fake problems as an excuse to demand free money. they do this because they have no ability to earn money in any legitimate or worthwhile way

>>15491661
Very true. If they made anything that was of value to people they wouldn't need to live off of government gibs.

>>15491789
at least negro welfare cases don't lie about the fact that they'd starve to death without government gibes.

>>15486680
That's not saying the ice caps will melt by 2013, that's saying that the linear trends obtained from that data predict an average expected date of 2013 for the disappearance of the ice caps. It does not claim that's a precise model of reality, or even a model. It does not say they believe that's a likely date. In fact, the article mentions that the error margin for that line is huge. It is drawing attention to this very problem in fact, the lack of models with strong predictive capabilities.
What they say:
"The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean and their limitations leads to an important conclusion. It suggests a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing in GCMs."
They also have a whole section dedicated to the then current issues with their models.

>>15487948
They didn't. However, one scientist saying so wouldn't mean that much anyways - people are prone to error, and research results should be taken with a grain of salt. It's necessary that time (on the scale of years) passes so said results can be validated by many people and made more authoritative. Climate change has gone through such hurdle, with most bad predictions being abandoned and correct theories being empirically validated. It can still be wrong on certain aspects however, and it's not extremely precise.

>>15459250
Climate science IS science

>>15493514
>That's not saying the ice caps will melt by 2013, that's saying that the linear trends obtained from that data predict an average expected date of 2013 for the disappearance of the ice caps
low iq.

>>15493523
no

>>15493529
>the model predicting an event isn't saying the event will occur!
the only way you can justify this position is if you believe climate modeling is not reflective of reality. do you take this position? if yes, then i accept your concession. if no, then you're low iq. either way, you lose.

>>15493535
>the model predicting an event isn't saying the event will occur!
No, the model predicting an event isn't a model nor is it's predictions being taken as true. The existence of a linear trend doesn't mean there was ever a belief in that linear trend, nor that linear trends are even good models. They just showed what a line traced along that data would look like, but they didn't say that that line's prediction was what they believed in.
I'll repeat myself:
>It does not claim that's a precise model of reality, or even a model. It does not say they believe that's a likely date. In fact, the article mentions that the error margin for that line is huge. It is drawing attention to this very problem in fact, the lack of models with strong predictive capabilities.

>you believe climate modeling is not reflective of reality.
Some modelling is reflective. Some isn't. No one ever claimed that was a reflection of reality in the article you posted.

So, real talk, we both know you're just trying to fish out an emotional reaction. You're just ignoring what's written in order to throw insults and keep people engaged in the debate. But at the same time, who spends so long debating something they don't believe in? I'm confused, why spend so much time trolling? It's not like you're the first person I've seen doing this. I remember one of my friends used to spend hours trolling people in the comment section of news websites. I just can't see how why you'd put so much effort in it to spend 4 days going.

>>15493570
you know what else you wrote in your post? where you quoted the authors of the paper?
>"The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice)
so here you are, claiming it's not a model. meanwhile you also posted that the authors stated it's a model. either you're a liar, or an idiot. i honestly don't care which. the point is that your argument is self-defeating.

also i'm not the same anon you were originally arguing with. i just saw you saying something indefensibly stupid.

>>15493575
No, neither I nor the authors claimed those lines as models. The figure says:
"Arctic sea ice–volume estimates from observations and from the NAME model. For the observations, the October–November (ON) means are illustrated for 2003–2007, taken from Kwok & Cunningham (2008) (magenta stars) and Kwok et al. (2009) (light blue stars). For the NAME model, the time series of monthly means for 1979–2004 (solid blue line) and the ON mean (blue stars) are shown. The dashed green line is the model ON trend for 1979–2004. The dashed magenta line is the model ON trend for 1979–1996, and the dashed purple line is the model ON trend for 1996–2004. The red and dark gray dashed lines show the calculated linear trend for 1996–2007 [combined NAME/ON 1996–2004 plus Kwok & Cunningham (2008) and combined NAME/ON 1996–2004 plus Kwok et al. (2009), respectively]."
It clearly refers to the lines as linear trends from those models. It doesn't refer to the lines as models. The model's data are represented by the asterisks.
The quote you posted doesn't defend your point. It doesn't claim that the lines are models. It claims that the above text (as in, the entire chapter) are reviews of current models and projections. And it clearly acknowledges that it the linear extrapolations have huge margin of errors, which is taken as arguments for further study:
"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover. (We do note that other published estimates also have large or indeterminate uncertainties.) "
They're saying "there's a lot of room for error, but this trend is worrisome", not "no ice 2019".

>>15493680
>It clearly refers to the lines as linear trends from those models. It doesn't refer to the lines as models.
Insane pilpul and lies from the climate cult as usual.

>>15493680
once again climate cultists show they don't understand simple scientific methods.

>>15493575
>also i'm not the same anon you were originally arguing with.
Ok, then work on your reading comprehension. You misunderstood what the terms on the text referred to. Your takeaway from the text goes completely against what the authors comment many times on the article:
> "(these predictions) leads to an important conclusion. It suggest a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing
in GCMs. "
> "There are many Arctic climatic processes that are omitted from, or poorly represented in, most current-generation GCMs. "
> "Sea ice is undergoing rapid decline; however, the skill in multimodel averages is relatively poor, the uncertainty in multimodel ensembles is large, and both are subject to model selection."
> "Simple extrapolation from hindcasts sheds little light on the problem"
If you had read the article, you'd even find yourself agreeing with it:
> "The inability of climate models to adequately reproduce the recent states and trends of Arctic sea ice diminishes confidence in their accuracy for making future climate predictions."
The researches come from a position of critical thinking and humbleness. They understand their models have flaws. They're empirically validating their models and finding them flawed. However, you instead misinterpret their data and take them as arrogant. They never claimed those linear extrapolations were good predictions. In fact, they're not even sure their actual models had a good enough precision, which would have been a much stronger argument on your side had you taken the time to read.

>>15493700
thank you for admitting climate modeling is farcical, soothsaying doomsday, religious arguments.

>>15493706
My point was never that climate science wasn't inaccurate. My point was that climate scientists didn't lie about it's accuracy - which is what the accusation about "scientists predicted no ice in 2016" or "linear trends are models" were about. There's a difference between criticizing scientific communication in the media and criticizing the researchers who were clearly honest about the extent of their knowledge.
However, you should note that empirical evidences of the historical series of the ice coverings, which are more trustworthy than mathematical models as they're based on reality, do show a trend of constant decrease. So yes, climate science is inaccurate, but it does seem to have enough accuracy to say "we're heading towards a global climate change with negative impacts for human society". It can't, however, say when with enough precision.
There are more positions than "climate change is a hoax" and "we're all dead by 1995 er 2005 er 2015 er 2025 er...". You don't need to have one of two strawmen opinions, you can also be reasonable and analyze the evidence at hand.

>>15493745
>criticizing the researchers who were clearly honest about the extent of their knowledge.
if they're honest, then they're idiots who don't know what they're talking about. grim state of affairs.

>>15493745
The evidence at hand says that climate science consists primarily of fraud.

>>15493745
Antartica is gaining mass

>>15493792
Where did you get that screenshot? On the Wikipedia page for Antartica, there's no such claim, with only net losses reported. I'm assuming that's Wikipedia by the design, but regardless, where's that page?

>>15493852
>On the Wikipedia page for Antartica, there's no such claim, with only net losses reported.
Not surprised that they would lie about it. Even the creator of wikipedia says it's only used for disinformation now.

>>15493852
>another climate cultist revealing he's a dishonest piece of shit retard
unironically kill yourself. i'm not even that anon, and it's trivially easy to find where he got that info. dumb fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

>>15493884
The page you linked doesn't say anything like what's in the screenshot either. It only has the same pictures. The edits don't seem to have any version like that one either.
It's also a different page from the Antartica page, which directly contradicted the prior screentshot. However, both pages claim a net loss of mass.
Bot check Bot check Bot check Bot check Bot check

>>15493896
LOL now you're just blatantly lying. Trolling is against the rules.

Warming alarmists are going to have to admit they were fooled by transnational globalists one of these days. It's not going to be easy but it has to happen. We wait patiently. The Day After Tomorrow is not going to happen...

>>15493903
Actually, it does seems I somehow missed the text at the top. I'm not using mobile, so the text wasn't where I looked. I also used the search function, but for some reason it didn't return the terms I looked for.
The data is from 2015, and newer studies don't seem to agree that well with it, as for example in Ben Smith et al., Pervasive ice sheet mass loss reflects competing ocean and atmosphere processes. Science 368,1239-1242 (2020). (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz5845))

>>15493915
>The data is from 2015
you're literally incapable of telling the truth.

>>15493918
The reference for a net gain is dated from 2015. It's either from up to 2015 or sooner. Furthermore, the page for Antartica instead of Antartic Ice Sheet claims a net loss. It bases it's arguments on newer data (2012-2017). The page on climate change and Antartica claims the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Antarctica
https://web.archive.org/web/20190127094557/http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132373/8/IMBIE2_accepted_v16.pdf

>>15493930
Imagine getting caught out this blatantly and still having the narcissistic confidence to pretend you're not a liar.

>>15471077
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-species-are-shifting-toward-the-poles/

You know you can go into the articles and find the studies which they've used to write the articles right?

>Pop-sci therefore lmao wrong

How do you survive managing to both breath and use a computer simultaneously with your sub-60 IQ

>>15494042
Ok, show that the data isn't from 2015. That's what it says on the Wikipedia label. Nasa 2015.
Or don't since you don't actually care about this conversation's topic.

>>15459250
Nigger, every year has been the hottest on record for the past 20 years
Keep drinking oil baron cum your sheepslave

>>15494365
See >>15484200

>>15494365
the n word is racist

>>15459250
Looks like CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas after all

>>15495533
If co2 were a significant greenhouse gas then there is no way that there would be no measurable temperature increase over an 18 year timespan during which atmospheric co2 levels increased by a large percentage.

>>15496221
What if there was an ice age starting at the same time?

>>15461155
>The climate changes more from sun cycles
>i bet those smartass liberal jewish scientists kinda forgot about the sun
EVERY FUCKING TIME LOL

>>15497709
They forget about the sun every time. It's true.

>>15497780
Yet at the same time they want to imagine CO2 storing solar energy. They aren't ignoring solar factors by accident, they aren't 'forgetting' or anything like that, they telling calculated lies intentionally as an means of justifying economic control

>>15498525
>CO2 storing solar energy
thats bad, its a terrible tragedy!!
>solar panels and batteries storing solar energy
>>15498525
wonderful and fantastic!!

can science explain this discrepancy?

>>15493570
I gave up on that retard the moment he went "look a trend line was drawn THEREFORE SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THIS WOULD HAPPEN"
How in the fuck can someone be that ignorant? In the very same paper literally explaining that isn't what anybody believes? WHILE I quoted it clearly outlining what some of the actual models predicted.

Sometimes even I can't deal with how fucking stupid somebody is. Glad someone picked up the torch for once.

>>15459250
Why do the environmentalists always seem to get so upset when presented with good news about the environment?
I thought they liked the environment, why does good news about it make them angry? You'd think it would make them happy

>>15461909
You should really stop posting, your gangstalkers are in your shadow, watching you make digital stool and are gonna sound you in your sleep.

>>15475615
>lets use trickery to hide truth
climate science in a nutshell

>>15500418
Sunk cost fallacy. They already ruined their own life by eating the bugs and living in the urban hellpod. Getting news that they gave away all their money and possessions for nothing makes them irrationally angry at themselves, but because they're atheists (and thus narcissists) they have to turn it on everyone else.

>>15501557
That seems like a pretty good analysis, its a shame for them that they'll never get to enjoy knowing that global warming is completely fake

>>15502228
I really feel for them. Living with that kind of self-hatred and fear must be so exhausting.

So how many years until El nino, 2 ?

>>15502900
Greta says just 2 more weeks.

>>15471071
USCRN has only been operational since 2005, and is probably the only reliable surface temperature record without significant contamination from urban heat islands or abortive attempts at homogenizing site moves and instrument changes.

>>15502300
I don't, I hope the stress of "knowing" the world is about to end from global warming takes decades off their lives

>>15479114
Thread MVP

>>15500418
They don't like the environment, they like the money and power they can get for themselves by claiming that they like the environment

>>15505345
thats how the messiah/savior complex manipulators always work.
"give me all your money, its for a good cause, trust me. you're evil if you don't gibes me dat money fo free"

>>15497371
We're due for an ice age. Burying the leafs under a mile of ice would be a welcome change