/sci/ - Science & Math

The Introduction starts
>A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend…
which sounds like more of the same, especially from a government agency. Until you read:
>A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.
And if the mere mention of natural temperature cycles of extraordinary magnitude is not enough to have Michael Mann piling tinder around a stake, the authors continue:
>Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.
And while you might think these troubled waters are about to be oiled over when they say
>At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made)
they immediately add snidely
>This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.
And then footnote Steven Koonin and Judith Curry, and keep on going.

They note that while global climate models (aka GCMs) attribute most warming since 1950 to humans:
>Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.”
and note that
>The preceding four interglacial periods… at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present.

tl;dr global warming proved fake again

greenfags on suicide watch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect

>>15800403
>wikipedia
quoting wikipedia is like announcing you're an idiot

>>15800409
Only high school students think that citing Wikipedia is le bad.

>>15800482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Kek, it looks like the author's just trying to deny AGW by using what is essentially some statistical smoke and mirrors. Nowhere do they deny that the planet's getting hotter, btw.

>>15800511
Yes, that's correct. Nobody ever claimed that the climate changes.

>>15800482
Wikipedia is libshit propaganda. It is one endless shill thread that never slides.

The Swedish government also says that global warming is a false narrative

>>15800363
I wonder why a petrostate would say this?

>>15800607
Go back to your containment board if you think that reality has a liberal bias. You might just be terminally /pol/pilled.

>>15800758

>temperature is currently colder than it has been for most of the past 4000 years
>global warming

>>15800811
>wikipedia and reality are synonymous
see >>15800488

>>15800363
Electrical cars have more range than normal fuel. They are simply better.

Do you realize you have to buy oil but you can make your own electricity.

Green is for Global reformation of energy nucleus.

>>15800364
FPBP

>>15800363
That's propaganda paid for by fossil fuel companies and it has nothing to do with the Norwegian government. They even acknowledge that their funding comes from fossil fuels on their website

>>15800409
>>15800488
>>15800607
>>15801828
>imagine being this retarded
What exactly about the woozle effect is incorrect on that page?

>>15801815
>Greenland

>>15801891
Nothing, /pol/ idiots on this board just say Wikipedia is "debunked" because they don't actually have an argument.

anons, anyone who ever do real research and tried to model temperature of closed or semi-closed dynamical systems know that the model is well-studied totally made up bullshit and predicting the temperature of the next few hours is a fucking big fat joke unless the system is extremely simple and you know all the input into it. even then, the chance of your made up model being wrong because you missed an important effect.
I've never done this modeling climate of the whole world before but from looking at some presentation, I think predicting the next few years is ok, you can probably overfit to the trend and being right but predicting the temperature of the whole globe into the next few decades is a total scam.

>>15801903
I know. You could have linked any page and they would pretend it's "leftist propaganda".

>>15801904
Take your meds.

>>15801904
>anyone who ever do real research and tried to model temperature of closed or semi-closed dynamical systems know that the model is well-studied totally made up bullshit
>I've never done this modeling climate
Then shut up, just shut up. You don't actually know anything you're just saying shit.

>>15801912
I've published a few papers on modeling climate of HVAC, buildings and greenhouses. what research did you do?
I've never really studied this climate change nonsenses cause it feel like a cult to me. would you mind showing me the model and what assumption into it that you can predict an open dynamical system like the earth?

>>15801917
No, you haven't. You even said you had no experience. Stop pretending to knowledge you don't have.

>>15801913
yes, climate change cultist like you throwing insult at me. unlike you, I did have my fair share of engineering research so I don't believe in things that sound like bullshit whenever they're thrown at me.

>>15801918
did you fail your reading comprehension class? or did your puny brain get triggered whenever people don't buy your bs at face value?

>>15801891
What about the woozle page applies to this thread? You haven't argued that, and since you seem to think it unnecessary to argue that point I link you to the idiot page. By your standard of argument, my doing this proves that you are an idiot.

>>15801919
>engineering
Of course.
Engineers are the STEM graduates probably most prone to conspiracy. IIRC John Baez gets the majority of his crackpot Physics theories from stuff engineers send in, saying you've done engineering research is a massive red flag actually.

>>15801913
to show you how much bullshit dynamical system modelling is, I've encountered a couple of times where the model is a quadratic or some shitty exponential of exponential of quadratic functions that some scientists used a couple of decades ago. those shit was so complicated and take so much time to compute, we replaced them all with piecewise linear function or just totally linear function and most of the time, the system work just as well. turn out, the most important factor to accurately model our systems are not some shitty functions but the correct sampling of the inputs into the model. turn out of most of the shitty complex function they used was from the time where measure devices are wildly inaccurate. once you measure the input properly, you usually don't even need a complex model, just a linear ODE works fine on 95% of the data.

I bet you apes never even worked on solving a real engineering problem in your pathetic life.

>>15801924
Since you are incapable of reading comprehension, let me explain:
The study cited in the OP doesn't actually support or fail to support anything. It just uses statistical trickery to try to push a (inherently false) claim. The woozle effect is where studies like this are repeated over and over again until there is a veneer of credibility, despite there being no credibility when you actually read the study.

>>15801929
I did solve real industrial problems hence I know that most of the published research are fucking bullshit that doesn't work once you bring it to the fucking factories.
it's actually a red flag for me that most of the screaming from climate change cultists are inside academia only and few of them ever step outside of that circle.

>>15800403
cope

>>15801933
>It just uses statistical trickery
Prove it, faggot.

>>15801952
Just read one of the tens of thousands of papers on man made climate change.

>>15801967
So you can't prove it, you just assert it to be true and expect that to be good enough.

In which case, I assert you to be an idiot. Here's all the proof I need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

>>15801974
Nobody needs to "prove" the falsehood of inherently false statements.
Like if I asked you to "prove" that hurrfmph isn't haodbueolt, what would your response be?

>>15801982
you have asserted the claim that a statement someone has made is inherently false. This is inherently false and thus can be safely ignored. Have a nice day!

>>15801987
I accept your concession, oil shill.

>>15801996
not an argument
you are clearly either genuinely or willfully ignorant, and obviously seething. Knowing that brings me joy!

>>15801908
Wikipedia is ideologically captured and any article with any remote connection to politics is worthless except as documentation of the current official narratives.

>>15801982
You ASSERT that the paper OP linked employs statistical trickery but you have not DEMONSTRATED that.

>>15801920
>I've never done this modeling climate of the whole world before
Right here, retard. You can stop larping whenever you want. We all know you've never written any papers and you've never modelled anything besides textbook problems.

>>15802016
Take your meds.

>>15802119
I am about to finish my PhD in engineering and those are the work I did collaborating with industry. You must be a nigger cause all I see is that you are terminally retarded and have a subhuman IQ.

>>15802022
OP ASSERTS that the paper she linked disproves AGW but she has not DEMONSTRATED that.

>>15802137
The paper backs itself up. You haven't refuted it, you only linked to a wikipedia page. You assume the paper is wrong but you're unable to explain why. You have a dogmatic mindset.

>>15802142
The paper essentially just says "you cant know nuffin" and throws its hands up in the air.

>>15802142
The paper is over 100 pages long and I haven't found anything that backs up OP's claims while skimming through.

>>15802145
Why is it wrong?

>>15802148
Because that's retarded and not an argument? Did you actually believe it was an argument?

>>15802151
Dogmatic mindset.

>>15802148
Here's why: https://blog.indecol.no/climate-sceptic-talking-point-published-by-statistics-norway/
inb4 appeal to authority
>this is a government agency and you're just linking a blog
On page 2 you'll find the sentence "The views and conclusions in this document are those of the authors"

>>15800363

>>15800363
Green energy is just behind the corner don't stop.

>>15802132
No you're not, larper. Come back when you actually have a degree.

>>15802147
all the claims in OP are quotes from the paper itself.

>>15803259
When I said I skimmed it, what I meant was that I didn't even open up the file at all

>>15800409
saying wiki bad is like announcing you're a mindbroken dunkied polchud scientist wannabe

Bump. How dare you

>>15801856
Idk if retarded or bait

are EVs more reliable (now) than gas cars? I mean specifically about the differences between them not flat tires or wiper motors or shit like that

Uh oh bros

>>15803823
last peak was after homo sapiens started going out of africa.

>>15803823
Guys?

>>15803821
Electric motors need significantly less maintenance than ICEs. Fewer parts that could break, no oil to change etc.

>>15803855
Cool. You conveniently forgot to mention that you would have to change the battery that was imported from China and cost 30k every 2 years.

>>15803850
Lads?

>>15803823
>BP
here we go again

>>15803881
Nonsense

>>15803881
None of that is true. You can get a full EV for less than 30,000.

>>15801933
>It just uses statistical trickery to try to push a (inherently false) claim
>inherently false
Ah, I see the problem here. AGW is axiomatically true, so the paper disputing it must be false. Makes sense.

>>15803823
Ole Humlum is a shill for the oil industry and that graph leaves out most of the modern warming while using the same preindustrial date for the temperature anomaly.

>>15804030
No, the issue is the author worked backwards from the result he wanted by abusing statistics. Every fossil fuel shill does this. It's nothing new.

>>15804037
Do you have any evidence to back this assertion, like perhaps explaining why the paper misrepresents statistics? Or is it just inherently true?

>>15804042
As evidence I present Ole Humlum's past "studies" and his funding, as well as those of his shill peers. Easily searchable and quite definitive.

>>15801903
The people editing wikipedia are mentally ill communist trannies.

>>15800482
No, it means you're a fucking retard who believes whatever is narrated to you by random people without any qualificaitons

>>15804072
Can you find any flaws on that page?

>>15804080
Can you find any flaws on that page?

>>15804085
Why would I spend any time reading garbage?

>>15804087
Which part is garbage?

>>15804117
The entire thing. What else?

>>15804119
Which specific part is incorrect?

>tranny shills derailing the thread to argue about wikinonsense instead of the actual report.

>>15804136
I know, right? /pol/trannies always sperg out whenever their confronted with facts they don't like. They've got to be the most delicate snowflakes on the internet

>>15804136
The report is garbage. There is nothing to say other than that it is just more oil shill nonsense.

>>15804156
So why don't the models ever match the actual data why should anyone bother with the ipcc if they don't even accept data that goes against their agenda?

>>15804160
Just stop oil, sister.

>>15804161
>So why don't the models ever match the actual data
It does. What are you talking about?

>why should anyone bother with the ipcc if they don't even accept data that goes against their agenda?
Like the "study" OP posted that uses the same climate data as the IPCC and abuses statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion. Gee wizz I wonder...

>>15804161
Climate data perfectly matches the climate models. You need to trust the experts, they know far better than you.

>>15801930
When I first told these mouth breathers here that the whole AGW is based on janky computer models they all act retarded of course and called me "schizo" as they do to all people smarter than them, but they didnt even know this while LARPing as experts. They had no idea what any fo this was or how it worked or how it is all a pile o shoddy assumptions based on some side though some dude had about how Venus's atmosphere got to be the way it is. Always remember you are dealing with people who have no idea wtf they are talking about here, at all times

>>15804187
*side thought

When are the leftpol missionairies going back?