/sci/ - Science & Math

>source: my ass
lol

>>15579238
That time they had better air conditioners.

>>15579263
Slaves with fig leaves are more like fans than air conditioners

Ancient Egypt was based, the scale of construction they did was never equaled again until after the development of combustion engines and mechanization

>>15579238
Good try but that Greenland ice core ends at 1800 and doesn’t include modern data. Curious why you’d maliciously label it as such

>>15580389
Source: your asshole

>>15579238
>average temperature on earth has been hotter than it is currently for the past 10,000 years
how do global warming shills respond to this?

>>15580692
like picrel

Things were definitely better in ancient Egypt. Will taxes go down if we can drive the temperature up high enough to equal what they had in ancient Egypt?
I know the schoolchildren here don't care because they don't have jobs and daddy pays all their bills for them, but one day in the distant future they might change their tune.

>>15580692
>average temperature on earth has been hotter than it is currently for the past 10,000 years
We are overdue for a new ice age

>>15580692
See >>15580389

>>15579238
The Sahara used to get rain 6000 years ago when it was warmer and the atmosphere had greater ability to transport water vapor. It was a grassland back then. That sure would be nicer than what it is currently.

>>15579238
>global warming
>posts local data
Why the fuck do you keep doing that? There are at least 3 threads with this concept. Are they all posted by the same shill?

>>15581446
We can just have zero or reverse taxes, so long as the state maintains fiat printing authority and enforces its use.

>>15583971
>reeeeeeee its a conspiracy!!
>everyone is out to get me!!
paranoid schizophrenia

>>15583978
>it's a conspiracy
A single faggot is not a conspiracy
>out to get me
I'm not the entirety of/sci/, but this is where this shit accumulates.

>>15583974
Why do they even need to collect taxes if they have a money printer?

>>15579238
>how did humanity manage to survive in ancient Rome when temperatures were 3ºC higher than they are now and there was no air conditioning or refrigeration?
More butt sex. Notice the trend starting again?

They might have been faggots, but they weren't weak ones at least.

>>15579238
>ancient Rome when temperatures were 3ºC higher than they are now and there was no air conditioning or refrigeration?
Easy: the Romans didn't go to Greenland.

>>15585660
Because doing that weakens the plebs faster, which is the point of the fiat money and global warming scams.

>>15585709
Very true.

The invention of firearms, and the resultant rise of the middle class, has been the greatest threat to the aristocracy to ever happen.

They lost all their power and control over the masses because of it.

>>15585704
Greenland probably would've been pretty comfortable back then.

>>15585660
They don't. They do have to have persons value their fiat though (or rather, at least be able to threaten them with violence and kidnapping if they don't). That means this is easier, especially since 90+% literally believe they "pay" their taxes for goods and services "from the government".

>>15585942
Maybe Greenland in the ice-free years was the location of the legendary land of Thule that was recorded by Greek sailors.

>>15586544
sure would be nice if all the ice there would melt and we could find out.

>>15586544
How could Greenland have been ice free if the ice shield is several hundred thousand years old?

>>15585764
this. give everybody guns.

>>15587521
melting greenland wouldn't be too hard, you'd just need to direct the gulf stream a little further to the north. could be done just by anchoring some floats to the bottom of the atlantic and stringing plastic sheeting between them to 500m or so deep.

>>15579238
Notice how these graphs are always scaled so everything after 1970 is so small that it doesn't even get a pixel. I wonder why they do that?

>>15588534
>its a conspiracy!!
paranoid schizophrenia

There are paid fossil fuel shills on /sci/

>>15589312
source?

>>15588088
except jews

>>15590663
Here's the next lazy-ass bump of a /pol/ thread.

>>15585709
also the vax

>>15579238
>If global warming is going to kill everything
nobody is claiming this faggot

>>15592663
yes they are

>>15594037
its my planet, cunt, you're lucky i let you live here

>>15588534
Because they didn't start tracking the record meticulously until the 70s, everything prior is averaged from old reports of weather stations, and geological samples

>>15596097
its not hard to figure out why a graph that has the past 20,000 years on the y axis only devotes .25% of the y axis to the past half century

>>15579238
romans didn't wear pants for one thing.

>>15580692
this is due to the global spread of asphalt, concrete and so on which retain heat and disproportionately raise nighttime temperatures

>>15598217
If it retains heat so well, why does it give off the heat so easily then?

>>15598239
because radiation

>>15598204
its not like changing the length of the y axis would change what the graph says

>>15599068
The temperature anomaly for 2022 was 0.89°C, right on track with that prediction.

>>15599147
no it wasn't

>>15580389
>>15582821
why would you lie?
it's data from multiple GRIP cores, which covers the last 100,000 years
pic related shows the exact same graph, albeit inverted

>>15600197
Those cores don't include data after 1800. Are you illiterate?

>>15599068
>>15600064
That graph has been altered to push a false narrative. Just use a reverse image search.

>>15600314
the only ones altering data to push false narratives are the global warming shills

>>15600300
ah, I see
>that Greenland ice core *ends* at 1800
in English we generally think of time as extending from the present into the future, or backwards from the present into the past
the deeper one drills, the further one can look backwards - I think it would be clearer if you would've said the cores /began/ in 1800, as the start of the core is the point nearest the surface, and thus the nearest point in time
your choice of language confused me

but what makes you so sure that they start in 1800?
the project had drilling seasons from 1990 to '92
we can see here that there is a delta-O-18 datum from the GRIP cores, from 40 years before 2000 (that's 1960, as far as I can make it)

where are you getting your information?

>>15600197

How the fuck am I parsing the left y axis

>>15600400
>where are you getting your information?
the global warming shills make up lies and falsify data constantly, they get their data from their imagination, they even invented fake digital thermometers that read high in order to help shill their false narrative

>>15600453
>How the fuck am I parsing the left y axis
I have no idea how you're parsing it
it's the temperature in central Greenland in Celsius, at the age indicated by the x-axis; the temps range from -25degC to -60
could you explain what you're finding confusing about it?

>>15600494
I'll give him a chance at a rebuttal before I condemn him
the datasets are sometimes presented in different time resolutions; if what he's referencing has points at 200-year intervals, he might have just mistakenly inferred that the data begins - or 'ends' as he sees it - in 1800

>>15600367
They project their own dishonest atheist personalities on everyone else

>>15580320
Ancient Egypt developed electricity thousands of years ago and probably used it to cut those huge stones

>>15601026
>atheist personalities
Least schizo warming denier

>>15600367
Nonsense. Vet your sources before wasting everyone's time. A graph with fake data and an altered source label is beyond disingenuous, it's an outright lie.

>>15600400
That's how ice cores work, retard. The ice takes time to form and pack down. You do at least know that the convention for "present day" in climate science is 1750 because of the industrial revolution, right?

>>15579238
>then how did humanity manage to survive in ancient Rome when temperatures were 3ºC
They died Anon, they died. Have you seen any roman around? And no, the people living in Rome now dont count because they dont live in ancient Rome which was hotter. Of course people can live today, otherwise they would be dead

>>15579238
Ancient Egypt declined as the lands surrounding the Nile valley turned into desert, the new kingdom became so weak that it was conquered and ceased to exist.

>>15601952
Ice cores are stupid. Tree rings are stupid. None of these techniques can be tested, they are based on simplified theories and even in theory they have error margins much larger than the effects they want to measure.
The measurements are extremely indirect of minor effects caused by minor effects, in a complex system where everything can have 50 interlinked causes

>>15601957
>Ancient Egypt declined as the lands surrounding the Nile valley turned into desert,
Thats bullshit. That desert was what enabled Egypt to ever develop, it was and is a natural barrier while Egypt proper still has tons of water.

>>15581446
>Things were definitely better in ancient Egypt
*dies from easily preventable disease*

>>15601961
Cope harder

>>15601957
lmao no
ancient Egypt collapsed because Mesopotamia entered the iron age first

>>15601952
yeah no shit
thanks for your basic bitch contribution to the thread
what's important is that the assertion that these cores contain no data after 1800 is false:
>>15580389

@15600367
>gets called out as a lying shill
>doubles down and projects
every accusation is a confession with you people
aren’t you tired of doing this?

>>15579238
no one said it will kill everybody. it will force mass migration as land becomes nonarable. this has happened many times over the millennia. Arable land and reliable water resources are the cornerstones of a civilization. when they shift, the society either dies out or relocates, or is absorbed into another society.

Stop getting your info from YouTube

>>15602179
Tfw

Roman sources describe much of Northern Europe as basically a tundra.

>>15600367
Sure thing bud

>>15602236
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

>>15600494
What is it with denialtards and their pixelated jpegs?

Are they afraid of the vaxx hiding in lossless image formats?

Like guys, if you wanna appear serious maybe don't post pictures that look like they've passed through a thousand Facebook groups?

>>15602249
very true, but the quality of the image really has nothing to do with the the "climategate" quote contained therein, which really does seem to indicate an intention to fabricate temperature data to better meet predictions
it's never a good look to rely on ad hom, anon, especially not when you're signalling your self-perceived intellectual superiority with that smug and smarmy tone

>>15602241
Go on, you must be onto something bigly here

Dr. Dropped-out-of-highschool-Chud LOL

>>15602279
LMAO
>can't we have an open debate about
No, fuck off back to /pol/ chuddie :3

>>15602281
tree ring data used as a climate proxy record was indicating a DECLINE in global temperature since 1961, and so researchers literally 'hid the decline' behind other lines on the graph
surely you know about this
>>15602314
it's coming

>>15602332
>tree ring data used as a climate proxy record was indicating a DECLINE in global temperature since 1961
Source: fucking made it up

>>15602279
>it's never a good look to rely on ad hom, anon
It's also not good to rely on partial quotes without context. Not even in lossless image formats.

>>15579238
>Did everyone die? Did civilization collapse?

As a matter of fact both those civilizations collapsed.

>>15602482
Also, everyone died.

>>15602117
You have poor reading comprehension.

>>15590663
And niggers
>>15590674
Pol is a pro-israel board

>>15602477
>A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming since the 1950s.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
I would go further than this statement, and agree with the guys at the CRU at the University of East Anglia; as a climate proxy record, beyond failing to show warming, it actually appears to show a decline

>>15602495
Thanks. After reading that, I don't find "hiding the decline" bad though. Especially for data where we have instrumental records. Seems like tree rings aren't understood well enough to serve as proxies.

>>15602480
I would agree with that
but the quote essentially means the same, even when considered in its true context; a decline in temperatures as indicated by annual tree growth rings was hidden by climatic researchers
>"hide the decline"
they can't simultaneously hope to use tree ring width as a proxy for temperature, and then claim they WEREN'T trying to hide a decline in temperature by trying to hide the decline in tree ring width, can they?

>>15602486
you explaining - what? - the formation of ice cores?
it's just irrelevant
you're not contributing anything from what I can tell
we're talking about data obtained from a specific group of ice cores, which contain data from as recently as 1960
therefore the assertion anon made, that these cores contain no data after 1800, is false, because they do
if you're talking about the disagreement regarding which end of the ice core constitutes the 'start', and which the 'end', then whatever - it was a misunderstanding and a failure of communication

>>15602515
and that's absolutely a fair take; I would agree with you - there's something else going on with the trees altogether
I think the whole incident does serve well the 'denier' arguments, though
it's solid evidence that climatic researchers are happy to fabricate (or at least 'doctor') results in support of their theories, which was an accusation deniers have been making as long as I've been alive

they got caught out doing just that

>>15602542
>a decline in temperatures as indicated by annual tree growth rings was hidden by climatic researchers
Because they knew it was an artefact. They had actual temperature readings. Why would they show a decline if they know it wasn't there? Not hiding it would be extremely unethical.
Last week I had a very similar situation at work. We use something like a proxy to evaluate the performance of our experiment. Something happened and there's a decline. A decline we know isn't there. So we scale the data to hide this artificial decline. It's common practice. Only midwits would be butthurt by this, especially if this happened 20 years ago. Do global warming deniers really have no news arguments since then?

>>15602576
>Not hiding it would be extremely unethical.
your argument is that NOT hiding empirical data is unethical?
the fuck is wrong with you
you're disgusting

>>15602548
>it's solid evidence that climatic researchers are happy to fabricate (or at least 'doctor') results in support of their theories
Ironically that's what the deniers are doing here. The scientists doctor results to fit their instrumental measurements. Deniers doctor these news to fit their "theory". By naming a wrong reason you tweak the facts to fit your theory that climate scientists are making things up. You can do that only by ignoring context, namely that we know that there's no decline in that time frame. We have the actual temperature measurements, and the tree ring analysis gives numbers which are obviously wrong.

>>15602600
I see three possibilities here
1. You know you're wrong and you're just trolling, trying to establish a narrative that global warming is a hoax, even if you know better.
2. You think you're right and you will fight tooth and nail to defend your ideas, deaf to reason or any arguments.
3. You think you're right, but you're willing to listen to someone who's been a scientist for 10 years and could try to explain you why it's a common practice and in this case "hiding the decline" is the most sensible and honest thing to do.

In case 3, I'll happily explain it to you. In cases 1 and 2, go to hell.

>>15602606
for whatever reason, they're clearly not a good proxy of temperature after 1950, I agree
but as much as you might want it to be, this doesn't exonerate the researchers of their doctoring of the data, I'm sorry
your assertion that the deniers similarly doctor THEIR data to fit THEIR theories might well be true, but it's a tu quoque argument, and it's irrelevant to a discussion of actual climatic researchers doctoring graphs to hide a decline in their chosen temperature proxy

I think you'll agree that we ought to be holding actual scientists to a much higher standard than average Joe climate skeptics on fucking facebook, but this is proof they seem to be similarly guilty of employing deceptions in support of their respective assertions

it makes me feel a little sick

>>15602614
"think I'm right" about what, exactly?
if you would, explicitly state what you are accusing me of

>>15602641
>your argument is that NOT hiding empirical data is unethical?
>the fuck is wrong with you
>you're disgusting
It should be pretty fucking obvious what you think you're right about. If you're not even willing to acknowledge that, it's probably case 1.

>>15602643
no, it wasn't - you actually have to explain the opinion you've formed of me (I'm not psychic)
I take it you're accusing me of thinking that data should always be presented without any kind of intentional deception to fraudulently indicate something not supported by that selfsame data?
if so, you're correct; I do
as a rule, I don't think data should be manipulated or altered to fit hypotheses

>>15602661
>I don't think data should be manipulated or altered to fit hypotheses
Then why are you butthurt in this case? They didn't manipulate or alter data to fit any hypothesis. Unless "the temperature of our thermometer is a better representation of the actual temperature than this tree ring we don't really understand" is a "hypothesis".

>>15602675
butthurt? no
disgusted
if tree ring width is not a good proxy for temperature, then it shouldn't be used as a proxy for that in their research, and they absolutely shouldn't make use of it up until it appears to show a temp decline, and then deliberately obscure the data when a decline is shown
you cannot demonstrate an increase using tree rings, when the tree rings themselves show a decline

>Unless "the temperature of our thermometer is a better representation of the actual temperature than this tree ring we don't really understand" is a "hypothesis".
the hypothesis is that there has been an increase in temp, and that tree rings can used to show the temperature prior to the invention of the thermometer to prove this - so if the tree rings do NOT accurately reflect temperature (which they don't appear to), then no increase from the temperatures recorded by tree rings can be demonstrated

it's blatantly fraudulent, and so I'm not sure why you're defending it, or why you can't understand how damning this is

>>15602700
OY VEY!!!
HIDE THE DECLINE!!!
HIDE THAT GODDAMNED DECLINE!!!
t. >>15600494 picrel

>>15604294

>>15602700
>you cannot demonstrate an increase using tree rings, when the tree rings themselves show a decline
How can you speak with such certainty if you don't even understand the tree ring analysis in the slightest?
>the hypothesis is that there has been an increase in temp, and that tree rings can used to show the temperature prior to the invention of the thermometer to prove this
That's where the 15-year-old Fox News grift with these emails shows. This email is not about data before the invention of the thermometer. If you look at the context of the email, it's about when you both have tree ring data and thermometer data. The whole "trick" relies on reliable data being available. That's why there's nothing disgusting about it.
>it's blatantly fraudulent, and so I'm not sure why you're defending it, or why you can't understand how damning this is
YOU are the one who doesn't even understand what they did. In your head it's fraudulent because you ignore the context.

>>15605061
Data is only dependent on its own context, not in some spin seller fairy tale.

>>15605076
Then why do you ignore the context and spin some fairy tale about scientists being evil and manipulative?
Also, why do you ignore that the emails were leaked 14 years ago and no one except schizos seems to give a fuck?

>>15605090
>scientists being evil and manipulative
scientists fuck dogs lol

>>15605090
>scientists lie blatantly about global warming and all other topics and they suffer no consequences for it
at least we can finally all agree on the fact that they're lying

>>15579238
ancient rome and egpyt have a lot of underground stuff. Its nice and cool underground in those hot countries. Also their above ground structures were made of stone which is a little cooler inside
my brick house with no air conditioning in the hot summer is ten degrees cooler inside, with the help of trees all around also shading the house

>>15602634
Does anyone have the PDF about the fake thermometers that were designed to read 0.7ºC high?

>>15608640
>with the help of trees all around also shading the house
Those trees aren't only shading the house, they're also evaporating large amounts of water, isoprene and other hydrocarbons, all of which are endothermic processes. As CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the trees grow faster and evaporate more water and hydrocarbons, increasing their ability to cool their environment, this is one of the ways the increased atmospheric CO2 levels reduces global temperatures and instigates ice ages

>>15608684
>water, isoprene and other hydrocarbons, all of which are endothermic processes
None of these are processes. They're chemicals. Are you retarded?

>>15608736
>they're also evaporating large amounts of water, isoprene and other hydrocarbons, all of which are endothermic processes
>evaporating
i.e.
>they're also evaporating large amounts of water
>they're also evaporating isoprene
>they're also evaporating other hydrocarbons
>all of which are endothermic processes
drink some coffee

>>15608770
And how would that cause a net energy loss on the earth?

>>15579238
because your dumb

>>15601065
just lobotomize the schizo in the head and he stops being a problem

>>15608672
https://electroverse.info/australias-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-red-handed-cooking-the-temperature-books/