/sci/ - Science & Math

>Percent Of Stations Reaching
It's more stations being built in the north than in the south. Next.

>>15584114
i hope so, freeze out all these equatorial pests

>>15584120
Oh really? I assume you have proof of this, yes?

>>15584114
Who cares? We won't live to see it.

>>15584201
We might. Ice ages usually have a fairly rapid onset after a spike of warming.

>>15584202
What spike of warming?

>>15584203
The warming after the Little Ice Age that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.

>>15584206
Both were regional effects. Why should that trigger a global ice age?

>>15584114
>Percent of stations reaching [arbitrary temperature]
Holy cherry picking, batman!

>>15584114
>starting
my brother in Christ, we have never left the ice age.

>>15584194
What has been asserted without proof (graph without source) can be dimissed without proof.

>>15584120
>It's more stations being built in the north than in the south.
>What does "historical" mean? (I'm a shit-eating retard.)

The planet started to cool significantly about 1600 years ago, but nobody knows what causes ice ages so its hard to tell when the next one will kick in.

>>15585104
>The planet
>posts data from a single ice core
>the data don't even support his claim if you ignore the fact that it's local rather than global data
Was this comment written by GPT-4chan?

>>15584910
So you have no proof. Why did you lie?

>>15585287
>A suggestive question is one that [...] falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact.[3][4]

>>15585042
>I'm a shit-eating retard.
That's okay, but I'm not gonna answer your question when you can simply google what it means.

>>15585306
>>15585313
If you had no proof you could just say so instead of getting insulting.

>>15585324
graph without source: >>15584114
If you had no proof you could just say so instead

>>15585324
>getting insulting.
You seem to have difficulty reading

>>15585357
The graph has a source. It's from the US Historical Climate Record Network data, which is publicly available to everyone. You could recreate it yourself if you were concerned it was false.

This, however >>15584120, is an unsourced allegation. Do you have any proof of it?

>>15585364
>The graph has a source. It's from the US Historical Climate Record Network data
Which version? How do they define "Percent Of Stations Reaching 95.0F (35.0C)"? For a single second in a year?
Did you check the source yourself or are you just parroting what's written there?

>>15585104
That ice core dataset ends at -95 years BP which is 1855

>>15585395
>For a single second in a year?
Filtered.

>>15584114
Starting... yes... just like a recession... starting

>>15584120
Source? I hear this argument made a lot but nobody ever has evidence to back it up.

>>15584114
>I’ll make up some metric to misrepresent data

>>15585415
Why does your phone always label images the exact same way?

>>15585412
The number of stations in the country during the 30s were fewer than the ones available now. It’s a nonsensical metric. Percentage of stations doesn’t tell you anything. You have to look at the mean temperature recorded along the network
>>15585415

>>15585418
Again, NTA, but I'm the anon who explained this to you the other day. Are you retarded? It's really not such a hard concept.

>>15585425
>The number of stations in the country during the 30s were fewer than the ones available now.
And how do you know that reduced rather than increased the temperature? Most station closures were rural, and new stations are almost always urban.

>>15585418
Why would I return to a website to repeatedly screenshot a graph when it’s already in the phone?
Curious that you’re talking about file names and not the data.

>>15585425
>mean temperature recorded along the network
To add to this: that doesn't mean "add all the temperatures and divide by the number of sensors". This requires a weighted mean based on area.

>>15585427
You sure seem to know everything about every climate change shill thread on this board. You must be an expert in climate change shilling, so I have to trust you.

>>15585430
Why would you return to a website to repeatedly shill a government narrative when everyone has already debunked it?

>>15585431
Yes, the methodology and documentation to produce mean temperature across the stations is freely available.

>>15585428
>how do you know that reduced rather than increased the temperature
No one claims this. What people are criticising is that the data could show anything. If it showed a rising trend the "percentage of stations" metric would be equally problematic. Unlike warming deniers, the people criticising this metric aren't trying to tweak the variables until they show something that confirms their own beliefs.
>Most station closures were rural, and new stations are almost always urban.
And of course you don't provide a source. I don't have the data, but I'll call bullshit. Thanks to mobile broadband and advances in battery technology it's easier to build remote stations than ever. Also, I'd expect the first stations to just be wherever some researchers had their labs.

>>15585438
Do you think the people who think that "percentage of stations" is a good idea can read?

>>15585442
I'm happy to hear about your selective credulity.

>>15585434
>deboonked
If you want to deboonk the critics, prove that the average latitude of stations is constant.

>>15585449
No evidence for the counter-argument has ever been provided. If you want to allege that the data is misleading then prove that >>15584120 is true. Unless you're scared...?

>>15585453
>Unless you're scared...?
Thanks for reminding me that summer break has started. I'm looking forward to when you go back to school.

>>15585460
Thank you for conceding that you have no valid counter-argument. I guess global warming is fake after all.

>>15585453
There’s no original argument though. The network has a changing number of stations in such a wide timespan of the 30s and the 2020s. The metric presented provides no information.

>>15585464
And if you can present proof of your claims that this would cause unwarranted cooling of maximum temperatures then the argument would be settled. But you can't. You can't even provide proof that there were more new stations made in the north.

It just makes you and your side sound like liars when you deflect every time you're asked for a shred of evidence.

>>15585477
These are global datasets but you can see how much the number changes over time. It’s meaningless to compare percentages in the 1930s to the 2020s instead of looking at mean temperature.

>>15585488
Hold up... You're presenting the increase in worldwide stations as proof that this particular climate network is building more stations in the north rather than the south? Do you even know what you're talking about?

>>15585488
>It’s meaningless to compare percentages in the 1930s to the 2020s instead of looking at mean temperature.
Means are heavily influenced by bad siting of modern stations, which jacks up the minimum temperature and therefore jacks up the mean. >>15562748

>>15585313
>Not knowing what green-texting is.
Oof!

>>15585500
That’s not how it works though. Even if an individual station is not giving good quality data the tens of thousands of other stations plus satellite data all provide the same warming trend

>>15585488
>Data that don't support my worldview are meaningless.
Yeah, thermometers are racist and will lie unless climate experts (whose finances depend on perpetuating a crisis only they can solve) MODIFY RAW DATA to serve their agenda.
We have HISTORICAL temperature stations—ones that have been in place a long time. They show that the world is getting colder, not hotter. Then some "expert" magic happens and BOOM: "Glubble Wubble is real, goyim!"

>>15585512
>That’s not how it works though.
>Because I say so.
Ooh, ooh, do that appeal to authority thing your so proud of! I love that fallacy!
Tell us how we are too stupid to understand that basically every long-standing thermometric station in America showing it's getting colder means it's actually getting hotter!
Let me guess: We were holding the data chart upside down, right? We're all too stupid to understand what a DECREASING TREND is.

>>15585517
>every long-standing thermometric station in America showing it's getting colder means
You can keep repeating this lie, it won’t make it true
>>15585415

>>15585513
Aforementioned expert magic. Somehow the adjustments are perfectly done to fit the increase in atmospheric CO2. I wonder why they would do that?

>>15585518
>claims he's lying
>posts data not even related to his claim
ESL?

>>15585518
>N-NO, YOU'RE THE ONES LYING!
No, we're really not. We have the raw data. I can link you to it if you want. Then you can cope however you see fit—by dilating or calling me racist or something.

>>15585526
Are you too retarded to read the graph?

>>15585532
Okay not ESL, just stupid. Glad you cleared that up.

>>15585532
>I don't know what "raw data" means.
If it helps with how much JIDF pays you to shill their lies for them, I can tell you're trying very, very hard.

Can we finally stop posting this "percentage of stations" bullshit now?
You'll find the data here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt
Not that OP's image says which types of stations he uses and whatnot, so I just counted all of them. Code by ChatGPT because it's easy enough:


import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Define column names
columns = ['ID', 'Latitude', 'Longitude', 'Type', 'StartYear', 'EndYear']

# Load data from .txt file into pandas DataFrame
df = pd.read_csv('ghcnd-inventory.txt', delim_whitespace=True, names=columns)

# Create an empty DataFrame to store average latitude per year
avg_latitude = pd.DataFrame(columns=['Year', 'AvgLatitude'])

# Define the range of years to consider
start_year = 1900
end_year = 2023

# Iterate through the unique start and end years in the original DataFrame
for year in range(start_year, end_year + 1):
# Filter rows that are active in the current year
active_rows = df[(df['StartYear'] <= year) & (df['EndYear'] >= year)]

# Calculate average latitude
avg_lat = active_rows['Latitude'].mean()

# Append the year and the average latitude to the new DataFrame
avg_latitude = avg_latitude.append({'Year': year, 'AvgLatitude': avg_lat}, ignore_index=True)

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(avg_latitude['Year'], avg_latitude['AvgLatitude'])
plt.title('Average Latitude per Year')
plt.xlabel('Year')
plt.ylabel('Average Latitude')
plt.grid(True)
plt.savefig('avg_latitude_per_year.png')


>>15585550
>Code by ChatGPT
lmao fraudulent arguments from a fraudulent source
we've really come full circle with lazy shills

>>15585550
>You'll find the data here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt
>Not that OP's image says which types of stations he uses and whatnot, so I just counted all of them.
Cute way to disguise your fraud. Using global stations instead of the stations OP actually used.

>>15585545
Raw global data overestimates warming though, shouldn’t climate scientists be using raw by your own arguments?

>>15585562
>Raw global data
How much of your alleged raw global data is interpolated? Post the source of the dataset.

>>15585550
>Again, I'm pretending I don't know what "historical" means.
Look, I can tell you're really, really stupid, so I'll try to make this simple for you.
Yes, new stations are being build, retard.
But the old ones that have been there for about a century are not new because they old, and old means not new.
With me so far?
So we call the old ones, "historical." We have lots of those because over a century ago, the USA decided it wanted to take detailed thermometric data from across the country.
At those sites, we have been taking temperature data a long time. (At the new ones, we have NOT been taking temperature data a long time because they did not exist because they are new.)
Still with me, dipshit? Are you able to follow?
So we have all these data points from the HISTORICAL stations—the ones that have been there all this time and have not moved.
Those stations show that it is getting COLDER, not hotter.
Those stations have not moved farther north. They are sitting where they have always been sitting. Do you understand? Can you understand that those data stations don't have little legs. They aren't on trucks or trains.
Those data show that it is getting COLDER.
So, there are three possible interpretations of this fact:
1. It is getting colder.
2. Someone is falsifying all that data—but if so, what makes you think they aren't falsifying that data claiming Europe is getting hotter?
3. Math is racist.
Here are the raw data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tmax.latest.raw.tar.gz

>>15585557
Point out the fraudulent line, please. I made literally everything public. You can reproduce the exact plot, you can nitpick every whiteboard character in the code. I was even so open to tell you how I generated the source code (and to explain the autistic, bot-like comment lines). You have literally no reason to attack anything but the content.

>>15585570
See >>15585561

>>15585568
You interpret a lot into OP's post. Nowhere does it say which cutoff year he uses. Only stations that were in operation from 1900 and earlier? Do it like >>15585550 and post your code.

>>15585568
He's a shill. He won't even make ChatGPT do it for him because he knows it will cost him his job.

>>15585575
Samefagging is a bad look for you. Make ChatGPT chart it for you so we can all see how much of a liar you are.

>>15585575
I literally gave you the raw data, you fucking imbecile. You don't NEED code for that. It's clear you want desperately to adjust those data, to tamper with them.
Stop CHEATING. The overwhelming majority show that it is getting colder. We don't need a fucking algorithm to try to mangle that simple fact to fit your fucking HOCKEY STICK.
Again, JUST STOP CHEATING.

>>15585582
Watch him deflect again by saying it's "just regional cooling."

>>15585585
He really is just a bot, isn't he.

>>15585586
No he's just employed at a make-work job posting on 4chan. You can see that by how he posts all the same images over and over again in every thread during the same business hours.

>>15585571
Fair enough. OP did write US. Also, I excluded all the precipitation measurements and only kept the TMAX (which is the quantity, OP is looking at).
Here's the updated version. Anything else wrong with the plot that you cannot fix yourself?

import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Define column names
columns = ['ID', 'Latitude', 'Longitude', 'Type', 'StartYear', 'EndYear']

# Load data from .txt file into pandas DataFrame
df = pd.read_csv('ghcnd-inventory.txt', delim_whitespace=True, names=columns)

# Filter rows where ID starts with 'US' and Type is 'TMAX'
df = df[df['ID'].str.startswith('US') & (df['Type'] == 'TMAX')]

# Create an empty DataFrame to store average latitude per year
avg_latitude = pd.DataFrame(columns=['Year', 'AvgLatitude'])

# Define the range of years to consider
start_year = 1900
end_year = 2023

# Iterate through the unique start and end years in the original DataFrame
for year in range(start_year, end_year + 1):
# Filter rows that are active in the current year
active_rows = df[(df['StartYear'] <= year) & (df['EndYear'] >= year)]

# Calculate average latitude
avg_lat = active_rows['Latitude'].mean()

# Append the year and the average latitude to the new DataFrame
avg_latitude = avg_latitude.append({'Year': year, 'AvgLatitude': avg_lat}, ignore_index=True)

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(avg_latitude['Year'], avg_latitude['AvgLatitude'])
plt.title('Average Latitude per Year')
plt.xlabel('Year')
plt.ylabel('Average Latitude')
plt.grid(True)
plt.savefig('avg_latitude_per_year.png')

>>15585582
>I literally gave you the raw data
The most useless form you could have given me the data. The most simple would be a plot, and the most honest would be a script I could run and check myself.
>You don't NEED code for that
Admittedly, I do. It's a lot of data and I'm not a fast reader. I need code to visualise data.

>>15585593
>Here's the updated version. Anything else wrong with the plot that you cannot fix yourself?
The minuscule difference in average latitude is what sticks out to me. Assuming you had 100% good faith in producing this and did exactly what you claimed with no editing, it shows that any alleged change in stations alone couldn't result in as big of a drop in temperatures as the OP graph shows. That means that it's mostly a natural decline.

>>15585568
I'll try and replicate this (>>15585523) because I'm bored and you posted the raw data source.

>>15585593
>Continues using MODIFIED data instead of raw.
>Thinks his kiddie-code will prevent us from noticing.
Your move, slick.

>...A long pause occurs as the shill finds the raw data do indeed show an average decline in temperature.
>Shill tries to decide his options: run away, mangle the way the data are processed, or change the subject.

>>15585603

>>15585606
What does that have to do with the latitude data?

>>15585601
>Assuming you had 100% good faith in producing this and did exactly what you claimed with no editing
Don't assume, you can reproduce this with copy/paste. wget that link and run the python code.
>editing, it shows that any alleged change in stations alone couldn't result in as big of a drop in temperatures as the OP graph shows
How does it show that? Sounds like a non sequitur. The main criticism of OP's methodology (as if, he probably got this plot from Facebook) is that it's a retarded variable that's susceptible to where they build new stations. I have shown that the average location is not constant over time.
I'm still not saying that this is the only explanation for what we see in OP's plot, I'm saying that the data is full of systematic effects that OP doesn't take into account.

>>15585621
>Sounds like a non sequitur.
It is quite literally the entire point you tried to prove. That OP's graph showed a false decline due to site moves. In fact all you proved is that site moves could not have the drastic impact that modern cooling has had on maximum temperatures.

>>15585606
> MODIFIED data instead of raw.
If you explain how the latitude is MODIFIED and tell me where I can find the raw latitudes, I'll use the raw data. But I think you just spewed out nonsense without even looking at the graph. You went from "oh it's a rising trend" to "it can't be real, it must be modified".

>>15585612
He abandoned it after realizing it disproved his point and he'd lose his job. Now he's just back to whinge that he got found out.

>>15585626
>That OP's graph showed a false decline due to site moves.
In the beginning it was more of a "hey if the site moves, that would skew OP's result" to which OP (or people sharing his view on global warming) responded "you just claim it moves". Now it's not just a claim anymore, but we know it moves. It probably also moves between coastal and continental areas. If more stations are based inland, you'll get more stations beating some arbitrary threshold. If more stations are by the coasts, they will show more moderate readings and not beat thresholds this easily. It's also susceptible to altitude. If newer stations are higher, they will systematically read lower values. If they are lower, they will read higher values.
I don't need to show that all these quantities are non-constant. If the latitude is not constant, the others won't be either.
Also, any of the other effects might overshadow the moving north part. If they move north on average, but away from the coasts, you'd expect a strong increase in "percentage that exceeds 95°F" rather than a decline. Feel free to look into the data and modify my code.

Increased CO2 level cool the planet because plants grow quicker and plants evaporate water as part of their growth process and evaporation is an endothermic process.
Plants grow fastest on hot days, so the cooling effect of increases CO2 is most prevalent then.

>>15585655
Ok schizo.

>>15585661
He's right though.

I was hoping to see more, but it's really a lot of stations. Maybe someone finds this interesting nevertheless. If I wasn't going to bed, I'd get the main data and plot the stations exceeding 95°F in a different color than the others.

import pandas as pd
import geopandas as gpd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from PIL import Image
import os

# Define column names
columns = ['ID', 'Latitude', 'Longitude', 'Type', 'StartYear', 'EndYear']

# Load data from .txt file into pandas DataFrame
df = pd.read_csv('ghcnd-inventory.txt', delim_whitespace=True, names=columns)

# Filter rows where ID starts with 'US' and Type is 'TMAX'
df = df[df['ID'].str.startswith('US') & (df['Type'] == 'TMAX')]

# Define the range of years to consider
start_year = 1900
end_year = 2023

# Create a GeoDataFrame
gdf = gpd.GeoDataFrame(df, geometry=gpd.points_from_xy(df.Longitude, df.Latitude))

# Define path to save images
img_path = 'images'
os.makedirs(img_path, exist_ok=True)

# Create images for each year
for year in range(start_year, end_year + 1):
print(year)
# Filter active stations
active_stations = gdf[(gdf['StartYear'] <= year) & (gdf['EndYear'] >= year)]

# Only plot if there are active stations
if not active_stations.empty:
fig, ax = plt.subplots()

# Manually set the plot limits to correspond to the geographical extent of the United States
ax.set_xlim(-125, -67)
ax.set_ylim(24, 50)

# Plot active stations with smaller markers
active_stations.plot(ax=ax, color='red', markersize=5)

plt.title(f'Active Stations in {year}')
plt.axis('off')

# Save image
plt.savefig(f'{img_path}/map_{year}.png')
plt.close()

# Create gif from images
images = [Image.open(f'{img_path}/map_{year}.png') for year in range(start_year, end_year + 1) if os.path.isfile(f'{img_path}/map_{year}.png')]
images[0].save('us_active_stations.gif', save_all=True, append_images=images[1:], loop=0, duration=200)

>>15585612
As you predicted he ran away without even looking at the data proving temperature records are altered to cause warming.

>>15585667
not everyone is here to discuss science, we also have a lot of campus political activists here who are looking to push their political agendas. in case you hadn't noticed, science is highly politicized these days and the facts count for less than their political implications do. as a result a lot of people are inventing alternative facts to justify their political desires.

>>15586140
You're replying to someone who's here to discuss science. Samefagging "He's right" is worthless. Deliver sources, data or additional info if you want people to believe you.

We are in an ice age right now.
There's ice caps at the Earth's poles. That is an ice age.
What we are in is an interglacial phase of an ice age. Ice ages are divided into glacial phases and interglacial phases. During glacial phases, ice sheets advance from the poles as global average temperatures drop. The glacial phase had sheets of ice reaching as far south as the great lakes region in north America for example.

The climate changed, warmed and the glaciers melted and receded to higher latitudes and into higher altitudes at lower latitudes.

I'm just really pedantic about this kind of shit, I'm so tired of people that have no fucking clue what they're talking about or what the definition of an ice age even means.

Any time in Earth history where there's ice at the poles is considered an ice age, this is because ice at the poles is an anomaly throughout Earth history. Only a few times has the climate been cool enough like it is now to have ice sheets at the poles for millions of years. Most of Earth history the poles are thought to have been ice free.

>>15586477
>We are in an ice age right now.
>There's ice caps at the Earth's poles. That is an ice age.
How long has this been going on?

>>15586477
>>15586483
Nevermind, I looked it up myself
>The last greenhouse period began 260 million years ago during the late Permian Period at the end of the Karoo Ice Age. It lasted all through the time of the non-avian dinosaurs during the Mesozoic Era, and ended 33.9 million years ago in the middle of the Cenozoic Era (the current Era). This greenhouse period lasted 226.1 million years.
So, our current ice age is 34 million years. We're talking about effects of hundreds of millions of years. The beginning of that ice age is closer to the extinction of dinosaurs than it is to today. This ice age covered the entire evolution from primates to humans. In human evolution this is not an anomaly, it's a constant. The earth without ice caps is normal maybe if you consider rocks, but not if you consider humans.

>>15586502
The Arctic has been basically ice free in recorded history. The definition of an ice age meaning that ice caps exist somewhere on the planet makes the definition of an ice age quite broad, relatively speaking.

>>15586511
>The Arctic has been basically ice free in recorded history.
Which historic record records that? Please don't tell me the "Greenland means it was green" meme.

>>15585530
>muh raw data
>GIVE ME MONEY AND YOUR RIGHTS TO TRAVEL IN ORDER TO SAVE THE PLANET
>what about China and India?
>SHUT UP RACIST CHUD

>>15586502
Based

>>15585530
Why even make this comment instead of showing us the data?

>>15586516
The same historical record that you use to claim that this ice age covers "the entire evolution from primates to humans".

>>15586502
greenland was free of ice 400,000 years ago

>>15587078
??
>>15587518
Greenland is not the ice caps. Also, Greenland wasn't inhabited until 4-5000 years ago. What happened there 400,000 years ago means nothing for mankind.

>>15587548
>Greenland is not the ice caps.
yes it is
>Greenland wasn't inhabited until 4-5000 years ago
source?

>>15587757
Ever heard of that place called Antarctica? Completely ice free, isn't it?

>>15587787
i guess the himalayas are an ice cap too, they have ice year round and glaciers. antarctica is a high elevation plateau with 5000m peaks

>>15584114
hasn't hit 95º yet this year where i live, no hot weather in the forecast either
very comfortable summer so far

> Is the next ice age starting?
Its Currently snowing in central Europe, so it seems like the new ice age has gotten underway

>>15590491
imagine immigration when the bering land bridge reappears

>>15584203
dust bowl era of the 1930s

>>15584202
that'd be nice. I haven't seen a real winter in the last 10 years