/sci/ - Science & Math

Doubtful

I am not really kidding about that space straw idea. It could work...

>>15974801
noooooooooooooo trannies hunter bidens cock reddit globalhomo jews biolabs zog or something

>on record

>>15974801
I can totally feel it are we gonna die?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

>>15974918
>bitchute

>>15974801
Ah no. Your data is faulty. Want to know hot? Imagine your country has had near zero rain for 3 years due to the heat - when your country was known as the breadbasket of Europe - all the fields are cracked and desolate.

We have that in history. Your summer peaks at 33c and you faint. Maybe 40c (100F). Imagine 3 years of non-stop 45-50c heat and no water.

That was recorded history. You are wrong.

I guarantee you the evidence suggesting 2023 is da hottest is bad data deliberately spread. Average temps have not risen in a decade

>>15975027
>He doesn't know the difference between climate and weather

>>15975027
>your country
This isn't about anyone's country, this is a global average. Just because it's hot in Luxembourg doesn't mean it's hot everywhere.

>>15975478
Not him but global averages are simply composites of local averages. No one experiences a global average.

>>15974801
didn't a volcano explode not to long ago and actually increased global temps by 1.5c? think it was hunga tonga

>>15974990
>the youtube censors know what's best for me

>>15974801
Bummer. We'll have to wait for 18 years before we get to have sex with these world's hottest on record that you claim

>leave house
>11 below zero at 3pm
>start car
>tire pressure warning light comes on
>oh fuck I got a flat
>check
>no, it's just so fucking cold that the air pressure in the tires has dropped below the safe level
>go to gas station to pump them up
>out of car for a total of 2 minutes
>hands are already so frozen that it's actually painful
>do errands and come home
>see thread on /sci/ about fucking global warming
unironically fucking die

>>15976693
Winter no longer brings any cold, but jackets are getting thicker and thicker. This fashion satisfies longings for a climate that no longer exists.
>wearing thick jackets
>is a coping mechanism
>to satisfy the yearning for cold weather that does not even exist anymore

>>15977151
>Winter no longer brings any cold

>>15976660
Better than bitchute trannies, that's for sure.

>>15975027
>historical incidences of extreme weather means global average temperatures can't be rising
Are you retarded?

>>15976693
Maybe the "end wokeness" guy should've read the article lmao

>>15976693
The left article ends with "I'm not worried that my grandchildren, if they ever materialize, will grow up not knowing what snow is". Also, it was written by a journalist and not a scientist. So even if she believed that her grandchildren would never see snow, it would be an utterly worthless opinion. You do know what an "opinion" is, don't you? It's not necessarily based on facts. I think you have many opinions not based on facts, so you should actually know.

>>15977151
>>15977760
The right article seems plausible and at least cites an actual expert.

>>15977760
In this case it doesn't matter whether the author is a scientist, journalist, politician, novelist, janitor, or schizo. Any opinion about how much snow your imaginary grandchildren will or won't see is utterly worthless.

>>15976009
a higher global average has a local effect.

>>15977166
Polar vortex.

>>15977760
snow - global warming
heat - global warming
fraudulent, out of context measurements - global warming
rain - global warming
storms - global warming
ice caps aren't melting - global warming
unfalsifiable hypothesis - global warming

>>15977839
Doesn't follow. Local data necessarily affect the global average, global average doesn't necessarily affect the local data.

global warming and climate change is bullshit propaganda pulled by the left to scam normies from their tax payer money. A lot of it by the way. Its 140IQ play from elite that started with Al gore and after years of nonstop propaganda no one doubts it anymore... sad

>>15977856
why are you here?

>>15977868
to spew shit over "man made global warming". Because it is total shit theory.

>>15977855
it doesn't necessarily but it does practically, because that's what climate change is.

>>15977874
Think about how preposterous what you just wrote is. Averages don't determine their components.

>>15977895
The average is what is increasing. climate and weather are not the same. climate influences weather, weather doesn't influence climate.

>>15977980
Local climate is literally a description of the weather. Global average temperature is an average of local temperatures. It doesn't exist without weather data. Maybe you need a nap or a cup of coffee. There's no way you'd have written your last two posts if you weren't extremely tired.

>>15977980
>The average is what is increasing
elaborate on how average is measured.
Demonstrate sources with methods.
Demonstrate their datasources.
Demonstrate how the factor in the ever increasing and moving locations of weatherstations at different altitudes, and cities.
Elaborate how they translated pre 1970 non standartized weather data, with standartized weather data now.
What is the error margin.
How is controlled for it?

>>15978010
You spent so much time ITT. If you were really interested in finding answers to these questions, you could've skimmed the IPCC reports.

>>15977856
>ts 140IQ play from elite that started with Al gore
No it started with Maurice strong.
>Globalist, Oiligarch, "Environmentalist".

President of Power Corp. President of the Canadian International Development Agency. Chair of Petro Canada. Chair of Ontario Hydro. Head of the United Nations Environmental Program. Founding member of the World Economic Forum at Davos. Father of the IPCC. Committed globalist.

Given Strong's remarkable ascent through the ranks of political power to become a globalist kingpin, it won't be surprising to hear that he had political connections in his family. But it may be surprising to hear where those connections were placed.

Strong first met with a leading UN official in 1947 who arranged for him to have a temporary low-level appointment, to serve as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in Lake Success, New York. He soon returned to Canada, and with the support of Lester B. Pearson, directed the founding of the Canadian International Development Agency in 1968.

>>15978012
>IPCC reports.
I did. And I looked at the sources.
Data is shit.
Gaps were filled with imaginary numbers.

They work not with real data, but with "projections" and "models"

>>15978015
Sure you did. That's why you point out individual shortcomings rather than vague criticisms.

>>15978020
>That's why you point out individual shortcomings rather than vague criticisms.

>>15978015
projections that are retroactively shown to be completely accurate.

>>15978107
by "conforming" the data by adding in more imaginary numbers. models that are constantly updated to align with predictions don't forecast, they hindcast

>chart begins at LIA
pottery

>>15974801
I don't know man I had to turn the heating on in August for a couple of days, it was such a cold summer. It didn't felt very warm. Why should I believe the media or "the science" on this one when I've caught them making up lies countless times?

>>15978126
That's just a lie, lol. you got btfo in the previous thread by me explaining exactly the opposite. if you have any specific problems with the data, point them out, but not pointing anything out and making sweeping statements like
>"the data" is conformed
is a copout. what data? which numbers were added in? which models were updated to align with previous predictions?

>>15978281
Weather can be cold while the global average temperature is rising. it means that the heat is hotter and the cold is less cold, not that it'll never be cold.

>>15978390
>which models were updated to align with previous predictions?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/


>Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

Every year with every report, they adjust data to make the past cooler, while they make the present warmer.
Also various other data tamperings are cited here:
https://realclimate.science/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/#gsc.tab=0 with direct links to the gis data
Satelite and other data, get constantly revisioned.

>we mesured 24°C at town x in 1969-06-01
>50 years later
>our satelite data and models calculated that it had to be cooler than that
>so we update retroactively the temperature to 22°C

And so on.
Retroactive revision.
Because:
>plausible deniability
>who will look
>who will remember
>who will verify that satite data match unrevisionable local weather measurments
>who will question satelite data

Easy peasy lemon squeezy, now give more money to the billionaires and eat your bowl of crickets with cockroach milk, while you enjoy your curfew in your 15 minute city, you useless carbon emitting waste of biomass.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://realclimatescience.com/
it's over

>>15976693
>no! I refuse to understand the basic concept of regional vs. global temperatures :(

>>15978143
What's your point?

>>15978423
Maybe post blogs that have not received fossil fuel funding

>52 posts
>27 IPs

>>15978390
every model that's been printed

>>15978411
Exactly mum

>>15974801
Let this damn thread die already
No one fucking cares
It'd be trivial to fix

can we keep these two tread juggling together until one is deleted?

>>15978570
Sorry Mr. Boomer, we don't tolerate right wing retardation and we will vote you out of public office.

The problem is that reversing global warming requires doing very "un-human" behaviors, like intentionally giving up resources, when in history humanity has always been highly incentivized to fully use all resources to their max. Basically giving up fossil fuels is self defeating behavior, and human society doesn't voluntarily perform self defeating behavior. Thus it's impossible or at least highly improbable we ever phase out fossil fuels voluntarily, and this agrees with everything I've seen, since people have known about this since 1900, which that's multiple generations.

The only solution is acceleration. We must accelerate global warming to the point where it permanently kneecaps humanity's capacity to consume fossil fuels. Ergo we have to undo "green regulations", accelerate the collapse. We should be burning more fossil fuels than ever.

Fentanyl, one of science's recent fantastic inventions, kills far more people than Covid-19 ever will. Science turned the world upside down over Covid-19, why doesn't science seem to care even slightly about the problems fentanyl causes?

>>15978623
Fent deaths are cover up for jabs.

>>15978445
>muh models
vineyards in scotland

>>15978646
Those aren't models though

>>15978623
>obesity is the #1 risk factor for dying of chink flu and heart disease is and always will be the #1 undefeated all-time champion of killing people
>gyms are shut down but mcdonalds isn't

Lockdowns and the rest weren't about health, they were about inducing fear and compliance in the general population and giving Joe an excuse to hide in the basement for the entire campaign.

>>15978517
Copout answer. If you can't point out specifics, just say so. we both know it's the case anyway.

>>15978623
>Fentanyl, one of science's recent fantastic inventions, kills far more people than Covid-19 ever will
Mutts are not people.
>Science turned the world upside down
Politics did. Science can't do that.
>why doesn't politics[ftfy] seem to care even slightly about the problems fentanyl causes?
Again, it's a purely American problem. And America values profits above lives.

>>15978734
Wait, so the Trump administration locked everyone up to give Biden an excuse?

>>15978945
Trump didn't lock anyone down, governors did.

>>15978415
Interesting.
Cannot read anything right now.
Do you have a documentary or a source driven type of video/podcast about this controversy at hand which I can listen to while working?

>>15978415
Why are you purposely and maliciously saying satellite data are models?

>>15979156

>>15978945
>>>/pol/

>>15979156
because they are.
Satelites are not thermometers, they do indirect interference measurments.
These measurments, then require human hand to be interpreted to temperature, by applying algorithms to them, which account for:
>weather
>clouds
>humidy
>wind
>altitude
>turbulence
>

The data requires some form of massaging, thats why they are even able to retroactivly can adjust them.
Satellite measurements are indirect measures.

And the difference between direct method and indirect method is:
>if you measure something directly, the result of the measure is in the unit that applies to what you measure
>if you measure something indirectly, the result of the measure is something else, such as luminosity and infrared interference, which then has to be translated into the unit that would apply to the thing you measure.
The one who massages the data, by applying the "algorithms", has the power to "adjust" the data.

>>15978945
NY and CA have the largest population. Both states had stringent lockdowns implemented at the state level.

https://time.com/6228727/cold-weather-health-risks-winter/
>One 2015 study published in the Lancet analyzed over 74 million deaths around the world found that more than 7% of deaths were attributed to exposure to cold temperatures.

FACT CHECK: Global warming - if it were real - would actually save millions of lives.

>>15979163
>plot ends in 2015
For people who hate renewable energies, you guys are great at this:
>reduce
(most of the time you don't even post anything to back your claims)
>reuse
(if you do, it's often old as fuck, like this 9 years-old plot)
>recycle
(you will often find creative ways to recycle old points, unfazed by the fact that it might have long been disproven)

>>15978459
more credible than the ones funded by politicians in DC

>>15978926
Thanks buddy keep holding up that L

>>15979533
>people funded by industrial lobbyists are more trustworthy than elected officials
So, you're a member of the former group?

>>15979541
>elected officials aren't funded by industrial lobbyists
sure thing champ lol
your posting is funded by lobbyists too I take it?

>>15979180
>Satelites are not thermometers, they do indirect interference measurments.
Imagine being so retarded that you didn't know about infrared light

>>15979569
Yes and they measure Infra red interference.
And satelites orbit at a hight of 36,000 kilometers (22,300 miles) from surface.
They measure the interference of infrared from that distance.
Not the temperature.
They measure IR with a thermopile, which only recieves the fraction of IR.
This IR is then translated into miniscule heat differences, which is then translated into voltage, which is then the reference value that needs to be translated into "what temperature it means".

But becuase of the aspects I mentioned such as:
>weather
>humidity
>turbulence
>winds
>clouds

The obtained data, needs massaging to be translated into temperature.

>>15979592
You sound like a high school student who doesn't have a good grasp on any of this. Do you really think a high school student is smarter than everyone in every space program? That's called narcissism.

>>15979621
>no argument
oops another L for you mate

>>15979624
Your "argument" didn't merit a refutation. So you are a high school student who doesn't have a good grasp on any of this and believes that he is smarter than everyone in every space program. Do you also believe there is a vast conspiracy to trick you? You might want to talk to a psychiatrist.

>>15979628
>I can't refute an argument so I'll talk about my head canon
do you just like hearing yourself speak or what?

>>15979634
I'll take your evasiveness as a yes. You show symptoms of severe mental illness. It could be nothing, but you should seek psychiatric evaluation before you have an episode and hurt someone you care about.

>>15979637
/lit/ might be more your speed

>>15979649
Ironic statement from someone who doesn't understand how an infrared thermometer works.

>>15979716
did they bully you back out of /lit/ already? that was quick

>>15979716
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/49/which-measurement-is-more-accurate-taking-earths-surface-temperature-from-the-ground-or-from-space/

"Satellites don't directly measure temperature or the surface where people live. Instead, they measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere. Scientists then use computer models to convert this brightness data into temperature information."

And to be exact, the measure the brightness of IR with inteferences, further elaborated here:
>>15979592

>>15979637
Climate denialist numbskulls know that at the end of the day they have no ground to stand on, and that their position is emotional rather than logical, so when you reach the end of their dialogue tree, all they have left as arguments are braindead evasions and insults. This dumbfuck doesn't even care about being right, he just wants to feel cool and rebellious against the "tyrannical" scientific consensus.

>>15978460
91 posts
38 IPs

>>15980088
Seems like the denialists are few but hardworking

>>15979862
Ah, so you're admitting that NASA knows better than you do and nonsense like
>They measure IR with a thermopile, which only recieves the fraction of IR.
was completely made up to make you feel smart.

>>15980100
>he doesn't know what a photoelectric sensor is

>>15980187
It certainly isn't a thermopile, child. Stay in school.

>uhhhhh.... that's industry funded (nope) so it must be wrong
>are you mentally ill??? schweety are you insane???
>why are you such a denier? da ipcc
This arguer is a dope

>>15974801
While im not gonna argue the data, the reality is we do not see the consequences of climate change. Theres no catastrophic drought. No acid rain. No ozone death ray. No mass famine.

So yeah, I don't think making gasoline cars illegal by 2035 will save the world.

>>15974801
wrong

>>15980596

>>15980589
Yes there is you moron. it's clear as day.

Canadian climate activist admits to starting forest fires last summer which the news media claimed were caused by global warming
https://youtu.be/vym9i-cxDXs

>>15980711
>>>/pol/

>>15974801
>over 90% of surface stations out of compliance
>sitting next to parking lots, AC heat exchangers, airport runways
>managed by people who have been caught lying multiple times
>"omg it's the hottest year evah!"
If you are looking at anything other than raw satellite data you are not practicing science.

>>15980767
>raw satellite data you are not practicing science.

Oh then tell me how do you IR intensity is translated into temperature.
And yes you are right, density of weatherstations around and in cities increased.
Yes.
Also weather stations in Industrialized countries are densly placed, while in other regions or less economic prosperous countries have little coverage.

It is impossible to calculate an "Average" from that.

>>15978411
Yeah but how can I trust these global averages and that they are comparable to the ones taken 100 years ago? When you know they take some of those heat records on airport runways while a jet is taking off it makes you question things.

>>15980920
>are comparable to the ones taken 100 years ago?
There are no global averages that have been taken 100 years ago.
Kek.

They have nothing but old weather reports, which are mainly from britian, germany and the USA.

And these temperatures were not even measured with standartized thermometer or even at the same time of the day.
Not even to mention all the lack of data, such as Altitude and if it was urban or somewhere in a forrest or field.

The meme about "knowledge" of temperature is based on an abstract perception which they derive from extremly basic and simple highschool level scenarios of how to calculate an average.

>>15980090
>extrapolates nonsense from unrelated data
I can see why climate modeling appeals to you so much

>>15980992
Not true. Ships, buoys and locales over a large chunk of the world all have temperature records in archives alongside location data that can be, and have been, accessed in order to calculate, within some degree of error, the global mean surface temperature of every year, from 160 years onwards. before that, ice cores, tree rings, fossilized corals, pollen, and small sea creatures, and sediment deposits can all be looked at. individually they can be prone to error, but adding all the sources of data up, qnd we can be pretty sure of what the climate was like a long time ago.

>>15980767
>If you are looking at anything other than raw satellite data you are not practicing science.
It's getting ridiculous. You should have let ChatGPT do the job to keep some dignity.
I bet the raw data doesn't even contain the coordinates and instead it's just timestamps. Then you need to match the trajectory of the satellite to find out where it was. Also, I suppose you need to do a lot of sorting, since satellites don't scan the surface like a grid. The temperatures in two neighbouring regions might even be measured by different satellites. Good luck just matching this by eye if you're looking at raw data. "Ah, on January 7th 14:33 UTC, the voltage in sensor 3 was 140 mV, so global warming is fake"

>>15981038
Sorry, raw data. The signal was obviously 3670 ADC values. Determining a voltage requires calibration, which is fraud according to deniers.

>>15981023
Source

>>15981040
>calibration is fraud according to deniers
That's your best argument? You're really bad at logical thought, you know

>>15981038
Not how it works.
It's so inaccurate to their own admition that they constanly retractivly """corect""" the data.
See:
>>15978415

>>15981047
>It's so inaccurate to their own admition that they constanly retractivly """corect""" the data.
Everything is, you mongoloid. If you had ever worked in a scientific or technical field, you'd know that. And the calibration ("correction") is the reason it actually is accurate. That's like saying "wow, you're so bad at knowing the time, you constantly have to check your watch" - well, constantly checking the time is how you get good at telling the time.

>>15981052
In other words, if you calibrate to align with a garbage model, you get good at modeling garbage.

>>15981052
>And the calibration ("correction") is the reason it actually is accurate
It's accurate thats why we have to correct it.

Sure my dude.
You are retarded.
Also there are several highly academical educated people who did the analysis.
You can take a look, all with sources and elaboration on the date.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf

>>15981076
>It's accurate thats why we have to correct it.
It's accurate thanks to continuous calibration. I really wonder when reason has left you that you don't understand this concept. Or is it just mental illness? Malicious intent?

>REEE some weather stations are near airfields, so there's a bias
>Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data.
>how dare you correct the bias I never get tired of pointing out?

Also, "The peer-reviewed study" is not hosted on files.wordpress.com. Post the actual link to the journal, I won't even signify some personal blog with a click.

>>15981082
Again, if you continuously calibrate to align your model with your assumptions, you'll get an accurate model of your assumptions.

>>15981082
>Oil and big chem conspire with governments to excuse extortion and globalisation to fuck up the cannonfodder cattle humans
>they control and fund meadia and journals
>main fighting point is: Billionaires interests are to fuck over humanity with the excuse of le climate
>Narrative and Billionaire funded journals wont publish or even accept critique
>please give me government and MSM approved source, that government and MSM conspire to fuck over plebs with the economic choke point of "le carbon"

>>15981091
> calibrate to align your model with your assumptions
That's not what is happening though, fucking retard.
>you'll get an accurate model of your assumptions.
No. Fucking. Shit. Do you feel clever pointing this out? This is obvious to a high schooler. Also, that's why no scientist would even consider doing this.

>>15981094
So, the study isn't peer-reviewed after all? I knew it was better to not click the link lol

>>15981099
The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

>>15981097
I'm just repeating your own high schooler argument back to you. Don't like it, make a better one. Meanwhile, keep holding that L

>>15981102
>The first guy is retired
Wow, weak start.
>The second guy is an economist
Who the fuck asked an economist about his opinion on a STEM topic?
>The third guy only has a bachelor's degree. In physics, not even in climate science.
Come on, the list can't be real. You're making this up to make the other anon look bad, aren't you?

>>15981097
>oooh uh our models fails to predict 0° increase
>ooo uh lets call it global warming pause
>oh but the models are still correct
>even thogh they failed to predict
https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
>please trust us
>since 80 years every prediction failed
>but everything that is a "weather related inconvenience for sure is a result of HUMAN CAUSED climate change"
>but our predictions and models fail
>but they are still right
2017
>oooh uh we needed to correct the data from 1998 until now
>now the pause does not exist anymore
>but our models still failed
>but not as bad as before
>therefore we are right, and there is nothing fishy about the fact that a Oil magnate worked hand in hand with a Group of Oil billionaires and eugenicists, to create the IPCC
>nothing, it has nothing to do with depopulation and fucking up the competition to have control over humanity

>Maurice strong was a good guy
>just like rockefeller
>amazing lovely guys who simply cared about philantropy and the environment

>>15981103
>your own high schooler argument
What do you even think that my argument was? How do you think calibration works? In January, they sit down, decide what temperature they want to measure this year and then they go ahead and change the value to what they want them to be? Is that what you think is going on?

>>15981112
>Climate data
>90% of it is statistics
>10% of it is PR and Communications to turn temperatures and models into "climate".

The paper is about the math, algorithms, Data integrity and math.
It's mostly math and statistics.

Climatologist don't do "climate research" they massage data, with date they recieve from weatherstations.
There is nothing special about a climatologist, that any other profession that works with math could not do, except some terminologies.

It's not like they would do "experiments" with "climate". They massage data, and give it names and then attempt to give you an plausible explaination

>>15981117
Anon, I--
What the fuck. I thought if I visited the website, I could point out what fossil-fuel-funded institute hosts this. What is this???

>>15981123
>Climatologist don't do "climate research"
But retired people, economists and dropouts do?

>>15981117
I eventually did click the link and now I'm triple confused. I know Thomas Stocker. He's a leading researcher in the field. I have a former colleague who did a postdoctoral fellowship in his group. He's most certainly not a crackpot. So, unless the whole thing is fabricated, I don't even think that the document supports your arguments. And then again, why the fuck is it hosted on a website that has nothing but a bunch of AI generated weight loss nonsense?

>>15981118
>How do you think calibration works

actually it is really simple:
>if you have a direct measurement technique
>and you want to replace it with an indirect technique
>then you have to demonstrate that the indirect technique is as accurate as the direct method

>so you measure it with the direct metho and with the indirect method at the same time
>if the indirect method deviates from the direct method (the gold standard)
>then you adjust the indirect method to fit the results of the direct measure until it does not deviate anymore.

What they do is not "calibration" because they do not match it against "direct measurements".
They adjust it by excuses like "oh this was actually not weather but climate" and "this was actually weather and not climate".

This method is called "homogenisation of weather data"

To reliably study the real development of the climate, non-climatic changes have to be removed. The date of the change is often documented (called meta data: data about data), but not always. Meta data is often only available in the local language. In the best case, there are parallel measurements with the original and the new set-up for several years.

So they pick subjective dataspots they label as "non-climatic change" and exlcude it or "adjust it" to be more "climatic".

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.6105
https://etccdi.pacificclimate.org/docs/Classic_Examples.pdf
https://imedea.uib-csic.es/master/cambioglobal/Modulo_I_cod101600/Climent/Peterson_et_al.pdf
The same as the media is doing with: "its climate not weather, its weather not climate".
>if it gets cold in the winter "weather is not climate, just because its cold it doesn't mean earth isn't warming"
>if it gets warm in the summer "its climate not weather, because its warm, it proves earth is warming"

>>15981124
Lol they moved the domain:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Here you can have it from their IPCC website:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

>>15981118
>What do you even think that my argument was?
Point to a very basic concept no one disputes and pretend it's a good analogy. Same genre of rhetorical bullshit invoked by pairing gravity denial with climate denial. If you instead described what the calibration standard is and how it was derived independently, you'd be on your way to a more coherent argument. You seem incapable of that, however.

>>15981135
>if you have a direct measurement technique
>and you want to replace it with an indirect technique
>then you have to demonstrate that the indirect technique is as accurate as the direct method
What if your indirect technique has a high precision but a low accuracy? Let me tell you what you do then: You take some points using an alternative method that has a higher accuracy and then you correct your other dataset. Let's say your indirect (inaccurate, yet precise) methods measures 3.15, 3.12, 3.10, 3.07, but you know that the value of the second point is actually 2.8. then it's easy to correct your sample to 2.83, 2.8, 2.78, 2.75. How is this fraud? Or is it only fraud if your prediction was that the values would be around 2.8? Maybe it was just a good prediction? Ever considered that?

>>15981141
Yeah, no.
Not in this context my friendo.
It is fraud because they pretend it to be accurate, and the consequences are:
>live in ze pod
>you will own nothing
>you will become a work consoomer slave
>family must be destroyed
>freedom is CO2 pollution
>not eating soilent is CO2 pollution
>living longer than you are productive is CO2 pollution
>eugenics and euthanasia it is
>fuck humanity

Since the 30s they predicted "in the next 20 years overpopulation will wipe out the world"
Since the 60s they predicted
>everything flooded
>ice age
>and flooding of florida and netherlands
>sealevel will rise
>no ice on antarctica
>icebears will go extinct
>then and there the temperature will increase by 2 degrees
>2013 everyone flooded
>no food
>peak oil
>the apocalypse will come in 5 years with certainty, if you don't pay more taxes, enjoy life less, murder your childre, sterilize yourself, only eat bread and pulverized types of food
>if you eat meat, drive cars or have children you are killing the world

All coming from organisations and conglomerats of oil and chem and steel billionaire dynasties who coincidentally were all involved in eugenics and population control, and now call themselves "environmentalists and philantropists".
They are sad and angry that "cannonfodder" populates the world.
They want to erradicate us.
But they are to few.
So they need to convince us to hate ourselves and each other, and one thing is:
>carbon
>you are made from it, you produce it, and everything you will consume, do or eat will emit carbon
>final solution is "Billions must die" except the billionaires of course.
>because carbon, because warm, because satelites say so
>if you question it, you are worse than hitler

>>15974801
>1940
Lmao even

>>15981160
>and the consequences are:
So you just don't like the implications and therefore you go after the scientists doing nothing but measure and understand the climate? The title of "an inconvenient truth" was really fitting (a lot of the movie is BS though)

>>15981265
The conclusion came before the science.
You should go ahead and observe what they did and do, and who maurice strong is.
This scam is in the interests of billionaires.

You apparently do not even get the gigantic problem of this whole situation, they put CO2 as the only pollutant in this world.
Anyone who argues about chemical waste, or pesticides, or shitty pollution by big chem companies is ignored.
They hijacked the green movement of the 60s who wanted that chem giants and liars and pushers of DDT, Lead Arsenate and BHC should take accountability.

But they hijacked it, now everyone focuses on the one and single thing that is unavoidable: CO2.
Oh yeah, glyphosate is fine, bromated bread, aluminium, flouride, pesticides and herbicides in the waters is fine, Everything is fine or a "conspiracy myth" except CO2.
Why focus on "CO2" and not:
>deforestation
>transforming wetlands to fields
>generall pollution with shitty chemicals of the soil which leads to defoiliation wich fucks up the local environment
>rerouting of rivers
>capturing prestine spring water
>building of dams and "water reserviours"
>asphalting and concrete junglefication of the world
>pressing people in dense metropoles
>forcing globalisation over local farming, by making farming locally impossible except you generate huge monoculturs with roundup ready seeds because those get subventions by the government


No there is a focus on CO2 for a specific reason:
>it is the chokepoint of economy and civilized modern life

>>15981265
You can throw all the math and physics and data at them and all they've got is
>You're a communist
>You hate humanity
>You're anti-development
Even if they wanted to understand the math (they don't, they're too busy playing "the game"), they are too stupid to understand it anyway.
Most of humanity is completely detached from the reality of the situation.

>>15981280
>You can throw all the math and physics and data at them

>throw math at it
>ask why model produces a "hockestick even when fed with noise"
>"oh we had to put weight on the data"
>now no matter what red noise you put in the algorithm it produces a hockestick
Nice

Dr. Manns hockestick used weightes algorithms, that when fed with random red noise data, would always produce a "hockestick".
Because of the timestepping and weighting componentn of the algorithm.

When the method of "calculating the hockestick" was tested with red noise, it was revealed that the hockestick was a artifact of the method and not of the underlying dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021750

If you actually believe climate change is an imminent threat your number one issue should be to stop India and China from industrializing any further. I don't see many climate troons talking about this though. Instead it's you must by an EV which makes a completely insignificant difference at best.

>>15981283
That's great.
Do you understand radiation physics? No, ok since you don't understand math/physics, anything you have to say on the subject is worthless.

>>15981286>>15981283
You're gonna love the next iteration of corporate spin.
Deforesting the planet and turning it into a desert is the best way to counteract radiative effects co2 increases. It's also super profitable.

>>15981283
>Dr. Manns hockestick
"Dr. Manns hockestick" is 25 years old. The controversy you cite is over 20 years old. This was addressed in the fourth IPCC report. Since then, countless independent studies have confirmed the "hockeystick" shape. The fact that you don't point out any flaws in the pages2k analysis shows that you have got literally nothing. You keep repeating debunked claims about independently confirmed results while pretending that it's just one guy and his stick.
Please, go ahead, and tell us what's wrong with this, for example: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788

>>15981287
>asinine deflection
Like pottery

>>15981312
for starters, it's published in nature. you have no better source?

>>15981287
>radiation physics
I'm not sure if you mean the physics of ionizing radiation or things like radiative heat transport, but yes, I understand both. Does that make everything I have to say about global warming valuable?

>>15981316
I knew you'd choose the easy way and embarrass yourself on your way out.

>>15981321
i knew you'd embarass yourself by having no credible source

>>15981354
Ok, I'm willing to listen why you think that nature is not a credible journal under one condition: Don't mention Donald Trump.

>>15981318
>I understand both.
And yet your arguments are all
>You're a communist
>You hate humanity
>The data is a lie
And have nothing to do with radiation physics
Classic

>>15981360
The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, for example.

>>15981361
Nope. My arguments are
>climate research has come a long way in the past few decades
>there is absolutely zero doubt about global warming and that human activities contribute to it
>counterarguments often come from fossil-fuel-funded sources like the heartland institute
>the people disagreeing on this board are (in descending order of probability) either trolls, useful idiots or paid shills

>>15981363
Nature medicine isn't nature and nature isn't scientific data, the name of the journal I linked. Try again.

>>15981383
>nature medicine and scientific data aren't owned by nature
can you suck your dick with that level of contortion?

>>15981160
>>live in ze pod
Large living spaces and house are literally capitalistic retarded wastes of space
>>you will own nothing
The "owning" of stuff is overrated consumerism, which mostly produces waste.
>>you will become a work consoomer slave
You are already
>>family must be destroyed
Most families actually harm their children.
It would only be fair if every child would be raised by a well orginised government program, that ensures all children habe the same chance for education.
I am actually for sterilizing people via the drinking water, and only give reasonable people a permit and an antidote which would allow them to get pregnant
>>freedom is CO2 pollution
Acording to trumpers CO2 pollution is freedom
>>not eating soilent is CO2 pollution
There are more options than soi. But yes drinkable food is economical and ecological and objectively better than junkfood (which has a high CO2 footprint)
>>living longer than you are productive is CO2 pollution
Actually true. The concept of granparents and all this wast of biomass is rooted in nationalism. Also old people require medicine and a lot of medical care, just to keep them alive without any benefit for society.
The production of medicine also produces a buckload of CO2.

So yes this is the final solution to the climate problem.
You may not like it, but thats actually how we fix the planet

>>15981391
So, scientific data is compromised because another journal owned by the same company published an article you didn't like?

>>15981408
political fraud runs downstream. it's not an example of an article i "don't like," it's an open and unapologetic example of politics being laundered through the peer review process

>>15981401

Lol just off yourself faggot, you are clearly depressed

>>15980088
160 posts
51 IPs

>>15978460
>>15980088
>>15981606
In other words, exactly the same ratio as this faggot anon's posting.

>>15981612
A typical ratio in this board.

>>15981680
Same as /mg/, for example.

>>15974801
bullshit figure

>80 years to get a temperature change of around 1C
>If the figure is even true
zzz

>>15981141
>methods measures 3.15, 3.12, 3.10, 3.07, but you know that the value of the second point is actually 2.8. then it's easy to correct your sample to 2.83, 2.8, 2.78, 2.75. How is this fraud?

You present a counterfactual hypothetical scenario as a strawman.

As it is stated here:
>>15978415

Theie adjustment lead to a 140% faster trend.
That is being wrong by a factor of 2.4.

Coincidentally the issue is not only that they make the present warmer.
But the past cooler.
Every single year.
Measurment errors accumulate.

They do a correction of the correction of the correction of the correction.
And this changes the dara by Magnitudes.
Data science requires solid and accurate data.
And climate science is data science.
If the fundamental underlying datasets is constantly revisioned, then the data is not reliable.
It really is not a problem to correct and adjust data, based on reasonable methods.
But this is not reasonable nor helpful if there is a trend of revisions.
And the revisions lead to a trend and based on the trend policies are created.

The IPCC creates a Technical summary gor policy makers, which is the dumbed down version to justify measures and give politicians and governments advice, which then lead to laws.

The questionable set up of the laws and measures, would not even be a problem, if they were at least consistant and conseqeunt. But the measures benefit or have loopholes for mega coorporations like Nestlé and literally you can pay yourself out of "emission reduction".
If law and punishment is revolving arround fines and "coupons" than these laws exist only for the poor and middle class.
Please elaborate how carbon credit payments, make "emissions" disappear?
The biggest polluters and emitters are allowed to pay their way out of environment friendly practices with a "letter of indulgence" similar as to how the catholic church treated sin.
Its inconsistend and inconsequencial except for the common man.

>>15978677
You're right. They're better than models.

>>15982745
>They're better than models.
Elaborate how a prediction is created if not with modelw?
How is accounted for missing data, if not with a model by modeling data for gaps?

Also how is it not a model if Upper atmospheric temperature is measured by brightness, then interpreted into temperature and this temperature is then used to model surface temperature estimates, when not even "raw temperature data" from surface weather stations exist and they only use the GISS data as "Quality Control Unit" (qcu)?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q206

" To create them from raw data involves a collection process of data from multiple sources, an integration process to create daily means (which may be done in various ways that may produce different results), then monthly means (the result depending on how missing daily reports are handled), a merge process of multiple sources for the same location, which involves the decision whether a new record should be merged or be treated as a new station. "

"The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis version 4 (GISTEMP v4) is an estimate of global surface temperature change."

>missing data
>multiple different datasets
>constant adjustment
>trust us we would not fuck up stuff
>because we use prediction models to adjust for missing data based on the prediction models

Also exclude satelite date if they appear to be a cold bias:
" SST captured by satellite Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) caused a cold bias that changed monthly rankings in v3.

While v3 improved low frequency tuning that reduced the SST anomaly damping before 1930 using the optimized parameters, the addition of satellite SSTs introduced a small residual cold bias (in the order of 0.01°C). The AVHRR is an infrared-based instrument that only works effectively in clear-sky conditions, and cloud contaminated data are often difficult to identify. "
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/extended-reconstructed-sst

>>15982782
>missing data
That's unavoidable what do you want them to do if a sensor in Vladivostok is broken for a week? Discard everything?
>multiple different datasets
That's a good thing if you care about coverage. It also allows you to cross-check overlapping regions.
>constant adjustment
What's the alternative? Do it by eye once and ignore later information? "We've noticed that version 2.1 of this sensor model has an output bias of -0.2K after 3 years, but we won't correct that to not constantly adjust things"
>trust us we would not fuck up stuff
Um.. yeah? Again, what's the alternative? Give every inhabitant in the world a giant network of sensors and access to climate proxies? And a lab as well? It's not looked you're going to analyse an ice core in your garage.
>because we use prediction models to adjust for missing data based on the prediction models
Not sure what you mean by prediction models. Can you be a little less vague? Do you mean Kalman filters? I actually don't know what you're criticising, but can you elaborate what they should do instead?

>>15982782
>small residual cold bias (in the order of 0.01°C).
Are you trying to spread doubt about an observed global warming of 1°C because a dataset has a bias of 0.01°C?

>>15982830
>? "We've noticed that version 2.1 of this sensor model has an output bias of -0.2K after 3 years, but we won't correct that to not constantly adjust things"

How can you differenciate a bias from "actual measure" if your data is incomplete and is relying on these sensors.
If you do not have actual data to compare it to, you can only claim:
>it doesn't match our expectations so it is bias
>warming bias exists, but it falls into our predictions so we leave it in

Wierd bias of selecting what is bias and what not.

>What's the alternative? Do it by eye once and ignore later information?
Later information?
Are you retarded?
A temperatur measue is of moment and time.
You cannot simply take a thermometer now and note down "20°C" then 9 years later say:
>oh according to our atmosphereic estimates and atmospheric estimate adjustments with GISS, we discovered that the measure of the past ist wrong and it was actually a different temperature


>prediction models:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-modeling/
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/future-climate

Using million year old "ice core samples" to estimate GLOBAL temperature for the future.
"the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)—as an example of our potential climate future. At the time of the PETM, natural records (climate proxies)"

>>15982830
Modular Ocean Model
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/mom-ocean-model/

The earth system model, ESM4, as well as the seasonal-to-decadal prediction model, SPEAR.

All of those are used in the IPCC and observations to "predict the future".
And guess what, every 3-5 years the predictions fail, and then they do a new model with major revisions.

"MOM6 is a major algorithmic departure from the previous versions of MOM (up to and including MOM5). Here are some of the highlights of MOM6."

So they use it to make predictions, to "eliminate bias" by introducing Bias from the predictions models to fill in missing gaps.
The the models fail the prediction.
So they do major revisions to the model.

But they do not do major revisions to the "measures" they applied to models to, with the old failed model.
>>15982859
>Are you trying to spread doubt about an observed global warming of 1°C because a dataset has a bias of 0.01°C?
They excluded a complete dataset because of "bias of residual 0.01°C" why not include it and correct for the "bias".
No they excluded it because the stalite data didn't show any warming at all.
So they excluded the whole dataset, with the exclusion criteria.

They are not even consistant with "adjustments". Either they "adjust" for bias, or the use "bias" as an excuse to exclude a complete dataset.
The inconsitency and decisions made are fraudulent.

These retarded excuses and models and "application" of models and datasets and exclusions are completly inconsistant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973
"We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

And the worst thing is, it is always assumed not even proven that "Humans cause" global warming.
They use shitty datasets, with high bias and exclusion and inclusion critaria based on their bias.

>>15982891
>They excluded a complete dataset because of "bias of residual 0.01°C" why not include it and correct for the "bias".
You see the retards bitching about correcting biases in this very thread. Feels like whatever scientists do, retards be bitchin.

>>15982905
excluding inconvient data isn't science but keep sucking that big oil cock, shill

>>15982905
The problem is two things as I mentioned dozens of times:
>it gets objectivly warmer globally
>the global warming is objectivly caused by humans becaue of CO2
Even if the first statement were true, that doesn't even remotly prove that humans CO2 is causal for that.
The chokepoint and distraction of CO2 is a Oil conglomarate created scam introduced by the Oil industry themsevles, because they care about control.

To boil every single climatic and environmental event to "CO2" is the chokepoint to literally destroy all potential competition and rising of lower and middle classes.
The conglomerate of Oil and Chem industries create together with government policies that only they can fulfill and loopholes only they can use.

If a buckload of fish, birds and insects die, its always: "Human caused climate change because of CO2" never because of:
>pollution by toxic chemicals
>dumping crap in the water
>deforesting
>rerouting rivers and other watersources to the Mega corps endevours
It's always YOU and ME.

>>15982868
>How can you differenciate a bias from "actual measure"
In my example, you’d take a sensor that has been in the field for a while and bring it to a lab and test it. You might notice something and the do a larger study. If you see an age-dependent trend, you have discovered what I just described.

>Are you retarded?
>A temperatur measue is of moment and time.
Yes. See my example above. You notice that the sensors start behaving weird after a while. So you go back to the data you previously recorded and correct it. Or, in the case of proxies, you might find some things which force you to adjust your measurements. Let’s say you base the temperature on oxygen fractionation in stalagmites. Pretty standard, but you need a reference curve, ie. what was the percentage of O-18 in the atmosphere? You do a measurement today, based on the best calibration curve available. Let’s say, 9 years from now we improve the calibration curve, push down some uncertainties etc. What would you propose to do with your 2024 measurement? Recalculate the temperature with the new calibration curve or leave it at the old one?
>You cannot simply take a thermometer now and note down "20°C" then 9 years later say:
Turns out, climate scientists aren’t hermits who read a mercury thermometer every day at noon.
>prediction models:
That doesn’t explain your point for how they treat missing data. If you cut an ice core and your lab technician sneezes on slice 4037, then you have missing data. What does that have to do with prediction models?

>>15982921
> (you) pretending to be dumb or actually are dumb

>>15982927
I accept your concession.

>>15982929
>I swallowed my own sperm and I'm proud of it

>>15982921
They literally adjusted the +100 year temperatures.

Literally colluded to do this, to create a warming trend.

Sources:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

https://web.archive.org/web/20130203113349/http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

>>15982941
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009
Oh, is it the email leaks all over again?

>>15982951
>change climate
>evidence of fraud
>uuuh bro its from 2009
>Data from that period is used
>fraud is still going on
>oh uuuh bro, it was a singular event, get over it
>yeah we may use fraudulent data
>but only once
>and its only the foundation of our data

>and because the data, does not align with global experience of a "warming"
>we should rename it to "climate wierdening" and "climate emergency" rather than "global warming"
>https://adage.com/article/industry-insights/renaming-climate-change-can-new-name-finally-make-us-take-action/2218821

>if we don't take massive action know
>earth will be a uninhabitable wasteland
>!!ALERT!!! CLIMATE EMERGENCY NOW
>ITS NO GLOBAL WAMRING
>BUT GLOBAL BOILING

>>15982951
NTA but yes, those emails ARE as damning as they appear. They are blatantly discussing "correcting" temperature measurements out of a need to fit their model, "to explain the 1940s warming blip", not because of some newly discovered bias in the measuring equipment of those stations. It is open admission of changing data to fit a theory, the exact opposite of the scientific method.
If you can't see that, then you are brainwashed. You are myopic.
There are truly none so blind as those who will not see.

>>15982958
>>15982963
So, you think that everything that was proven to be falsified was just kept in there? Every future ice core, speleothem, sediment sample etc. underwent the same fraudulent process? Every analysis of the past 15 years repeated the fraud? What happened to the deboonkers? Why haven't they found any issues in analyses after 2009?

>>15983003
>Every future ice core, speleothem, sediment sample etc. underwent the same fraudulent process?
Proxies are a different subject entirely. We can argue about how much ancient temperature proxies actually tell us about the climate of the time. Ultimately, proxies are not measurements of temperature, they are very indirect inferences of climate over a long period of time.
But the 2009 email leak demonstrates direct manipulation of surface station temperature (SST) measurements. Direct measurement of the temperature is the primary metric of weather and thus climate. Manipulating the data to fit a theory is so contrary to the scientific method that every single paper the authors have worked on before or since should be called into question.
>What happened to the deboonkers? Why haven't they found any issues in analyses after 2009?
Nice attempt to make us "think past the sale".
Here's just one deboonker's takedown of the 2023 analysis, published only this week
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/16/2023-earths-hottest-year-on-record-claims-fail/
We can argue over the validity of the claims made in this article, but to assert that no-oe has disputed any climate analysis since 2009 is just wrong.

>>15983003
>Every future ice core, speleothem, sediment sample etc. underwent the same fraudulent process? Every analysis of the past 15 years repeated the fraud? What happened to the deboonkers? Why haven't they found any issues in analyses after 2009?
yes.
No correction happend no revision or statment beyond:
>muh sceptics should stop focussing on this

And even if it wasn't fraud.
Still no proof that, human produced CO2 is warming the earth.

>>15983003
>Why haven't they found any issues in analyses after 2009?
Leterally ever single year, disputes and issues raised.
But "that doesn't cound because" it doesn't come from the instituions that commit the fraud.
>I only trust these people who commit fraud
>only if they admit to It I believe it

>>15982951
What is your Point?

>>15981606
191 posts
60 IPs

>>15983763
Your mother
191 poles
60 STDs

>>15983038
Point out specific issues with past projections compared to observations. You can make sweeping statements all you want but everything that comes out of your mouth is bullshit.

>>15983815
Not him but you seem like you might know what you're talking about. How do you predictively calibrate proxy records in the context of a warming climate without distorting the proxy data that happened in a neutral or cooling climate? If you link me without any explanation to an article that begs the question, I'll retract my initial compliment.

>>15983038
>Leterally ever single year, disputes and issues raised.
Why is everything in this thread about 2009 or some fringe points you won't even find outside of 4chan (formerly known as 4channel)?

>>15983018
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Might as well link exxon-mobil.com or bp.co.uk.

>>15983881
the alternative is nasa.gov which isn't funded by xom or bp?

>>15983888
Yes

>>15983925
it is tho

>>15974801
What nonsense which serious scientist would try to draw any conclusions from this?

>>15983875
>if it is isn't on the first page of google results, it does not exist, nor is real
>if it is older than 10 years it is irrelevant

>>15984905
Post it if it exists.
>if it is older than 10 years it is irrelevant
In regular scientific publications, yes, actually. If a >10 year old publication about astronomy was somehow compromised, that wouldn't negate all the research that has been conducted independently of the bad actors since then.
Also, it highlights that the likes of you aren't skeptics who are doing their own research, you're just waiting for the next instructions on what to shill since 2009. However, your handlers seem to have abandoned you to go invade Ukraine.

>>15984960
>change weather records of the past
>use the changed weather records as foundation for all subsequent research and statistic
>revision of data
>using revisioned data
>is still fraud and retarded
>even if revision happened 10+ years ago

>>15983881
Why? Because you don't agree with the site admin's beliefs?
How about addressing the content rather than the source?

>>15984960
>you're just waiting for the next instructions on what to shill since 2009. However, your handlers seem to have abandoned you to go invade Ukraine.

I rarely say this, but
>meds now

>>15985004
>you don't agree with the site admin's beliefs?
I don't agree with the site funding's lack of neutrality. Everything that comes out of the heartland institute is 100% paid propaganda.

>>15983856
Sorry, can you reword the question? I'm having trouble parsing it.

>>15985049
Define "neutrality". If you think their lack of "neutrality" means that their arguments are wrong, then it's still encumbent on you to engage with those arguments when disinterested parties like anons agree, unless you're accusing anons here of being beneficiaries of big oil or whatever.
And remember that many careers are dependent on or greatly amplified by research into and media coverage of climate change. That isn't automatically or universally corrupting, but its definitely not anyone's definition of "neutral" when your career and livelihood are dependent on a sociocultural dogma being accepted.

>>15985147
You're comparing people earning their income from selling fossil fuels to people earning their living doing research. Lying is incredibly damaging to the careers of researchers, while selling less oil is damaging to the former group.
If you think that parroting the narrative is how scientists get successful, you couldn't be more wrong. Scientific research is about finding new things, not about repeating known facts. Also, the highest impact for a scientist would be successfully toppling an established consensus.
>what we thought about the character of light is wrong and I can prove it
is what wins Nobel prizes. So would be
>what we thought about the global climate is wrong and I can prove it.
However, the people claiming it's all fake can never prove anything. That's why they're unsuccessful in academia. Not for their conclusions but for their methods.

>>15985162
>You're comparing people earning their income from selling fossil fuels to people earning their living doing research
Are you accusing the admins and writers of wattsupwiththat of actually BEING in the fossil fuel business? Or receiving money from them? There's a distinction between those two cases.

>>15985191
Both the people directly employed by Exxon and the people funded through the heartland foundation make money thanks to fossil fuel sales. There's no difference for my argument here.

>>15985162
>>what we thought about the global climate is wrong and I can prove it.
>However, the people claiming it's all fake can never prove anything. That's why they're unsuccessful in academia. Not for their conclusions but for their methods.
What is provable about climate science? What was the last piece of climate research that consisted of a hypothesis being tested?
The field is based on an inherently unsound concept, ie climate computer models. They are a Chinese room of weather data. The map is not the territory. Models are not reality. The predictive field of climatology is a joke. The instrumental records are flawed and analyses of them are prone to bias and the data is a symmetrically adjusted. The actual physical infrastructure of weather monitoring stations is compromised.

There are serious theoretical and epistemological problems with much of climate science when the fundamental tools of measurement, the foundations of any natural philosophy, are so problematic.
I know you don't trust the Heartland Institute, but Anthony Watts has been a meteorologist for 40 years. By the standards of the weather station administrators, the vast majority are improperly situated. When fluctuations of a half a degree allegedly matter, perfect situation of weather stations is paramount. You can't adjust for badly placed stations. Much data is fundamentally tainted.

>>15985209
Play the ball, not the man.

>>15985226
Pt 2 of pdf

>>15985226
>What is provable about climate science?
For example, the radiative forcing of CO2. Or historical precedents of rapid climate change (the current understanding is that the earth never warmed as fast as now). If you could find data that suggests prior rapid change, ideally climate change that didn't result in mass extinction, you'd change the narrative to a "it's not so bad" kind of thinking.

>>15985234
>For example, the radiative forcing of CO2
Knowing a laboratory value for a specific gas mixture doesn't tell you how it behaves at scale in the real world.
>If you could find data that suggests prior rapid change
But we can't even be sure of how rapidly it is changing today. We can't make comparison if the methods for measuring the comparator is flawed.
Even the worst case scenarios being proposed by the most pessimistic analyses are dealing with flux that is dwarfed by daily and seasonal variability.
Atlantic and Pacific storm systems were predicted to rise, what happened there?

>>15985248
>we can't know anything so there's no point in even trying
>but I'm right anyway.

>>15985259
Who are you quoting? Read the pdf I posted here
>>15985226
Engage with its content instead of the identity of who published it. It demonstrates serious problems with the surface station temperature sensing network across large swathes of the continental USA. We should fix that. But because the "wrong person" is talking about the problem, you stick your fingers in you ears and shout LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU DOESN'T COUNT.
It's petulant and childish.

>>15985267
>Engage with its content instead of the identity of who published it.
So I don't even need to open it to know that it's oil shills?

Ok, I opened it anyway and it even says heartland on the cover page. No, I'm not wasting my time on an openly-admitted propaganda piece. That's like asking you to engage with dumb shit like "there's no planet B". This is a science board, not a politics board.

>>15985267
>>15985226
There's a lot of crap, but this one stands out. The picture directly contradicts the caption. It shows that the weather station has the exact same temperature as the surrounding area. How can you take this guy seriously?

>>15985275
>LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU DOESN'T COUNT
As predicted. Having a tantrum about the person speaking doesn't refute their statements. You can be politically motivated and correct about something simultaneously.
Someone having a political motivation does not mean that everything they say about a subject is automatically wrong.

>>15985279
>It shows that the weather station has the exact same temperature as the surrounding area.
The entire surrounding area is warmed by the proximity to a power transformer and associated infrastructure.

>>15985286
Must be a powerful transformer to heat the ground 100m into the distance.

>>15985286
Please engage with the content of this:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/19/facebook-posts/fact-checking-talking-point-about-corrupted-climat/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/11/study-falsely-claims-96-of-climate-data-is-corrupt-fact-check/70531209007/

They spent much more time on this than I am willing to. I did my own cross-check and found the points of this guy bogus. Also, he's using what looks like a cheap Flir one camera that overlays a filtered image to the low-resolution thermal image. I have the same camera and his is misaligned, as can easily be seen. Do we value consumer-grade gimmick cameras now higher than a network of scientific weather stations?

>>15985288
The ground 100m away isn't the same color temperature as the ground beneath the monitoring station.

>>15985279
>It shows that the weather station has the exact same temperature as Do you even know what the "read glowing" means?
Its the EMISSION of infra red.
You probably rarely leave your basement, but if you ever go outside and stand in the evening when sun is already almost gone, and you stay 3m away from a steel concrete building, you will still feel the excess heat radiating from it.

Because you know... heat is infra red radiation...
And if an object stores the heat and emits it after sun is gone, then you may have 0.1-0.3 °C error and excess heat, because it stands next to an power transformer, which emits heat.
Not even leading to "misreadings" during noon, but in the evening.

>>15985291
>First, climate scientists know that weather station data can be impacted by poor siting, and they adjust data accordingly.
>Although some temperature stations are not placed in ideal conditions, experts said they are there to provide a consistent historical record and added that the data is evaluated and adjusted for biases.
>There is widespread consensus that annual global average temperatures are rising, experts said.
LMAOOOOOO
>we know our data is poor quality, so rather than try to improve the data source, we applied crude tools and our own bias and we just changed the numbers en masse.
Get real

>>15985294
>Its the EMISSION of infra red.
Yes, and? That's how thermal cameras work.

>>15985371
>object warm
>area around object also warm

>>15985295
What don't you understand about the fact that if you keep weather stations in the same sort of area as they have been historically, you can get an accurate reading of temperature change over time, but if you decide to tear down all the onws that are in locations comparable to where they were when observations were made hundreds of years ago and move them far away, it'll muddy the waters? that's the point of that. it can be adjusted down based on satellite data and data from remote weather stations, but disregarding them entirely is pointless and unscientific.

>>15985423
>object is the same temperature as the area around it
>object can reliably measure the temperature of the area around it

>>15985444
For real, people seem to think that concrete structures and airfields magically mimic global warming by heating up very slowly on a year-to-year basis.

>>15985459
>have 2 weather stations
>1 in the city
>1 in the rural area
>city is slightly warmer because of asphalt and concrete shit
>rural area is slightly cooler, because of trees and gras absorbing heat and activly cooling the air and regulating humidity
>taking the average City: 26°C rural: 22°C: (26°C+22*C)/2 = avg of two weatherstations is 24 deg.
...20 years later...
>now 6 weatherstations are located in the city
>1 rural
>6 weather stations measure 26°C rural 22°C: (6*26°C+22°C)/7 = avg of total of 7 weather stations is: ~25,43°C
>OH NO a alarming increase of almost 1.5 °C

Similar to having a weather station somewhere in a rural area on a field, that got converted into infrastructur
>remove vegetation => slight temperature increase
>add gravel => slight temperature increase
>add some streets => slight temperature increase
>add some building => slight temperature increase

You can get many types of human interventions which lead to weather stations getting warmer

>>15985498
Name a single case where just part of this has actually happened.

>>15985444
>you can get an accurate reading of temperature change over time
It's not accurate if the location used to be a grassy knoll surrounded by trees etc and is now an asphalt parking lot surrounded by buildings with power cables and AC etc running in the background. Weather station readings are extrapolated to a large surrounding area, so any bias introduced by altered terrain albedo / absorption compounds.

>>15985604
>He doesn't know how sampling works
>He thinks weather stations are the only way climate data is recorded

>>15985604
>the location used to be a grassy knoll surrounded by trees etc and is now an asphalt parking lot surrounded by buildings with power cables and AC etc running in the background.
Name a single station where this happened.

>>15979163
What is missing from the simulation?

>>15974801
Good?

gather shitty data, produce crap science

>>15985674
Let me guess, the "unperturbed" ones are cherrypicked?

>>15985684
>unperturbed
“unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA.
They are simply not "touched" or recieved some "special" treatment since they exist.

>>15981606
>160 posts
>51 IPs
now its 244 posts & 68 IPs

>>15986281
If you want to join the conversation, you don't have to ask for permission, anon. it's okay.

>>15986281
>now its 244 posts & 68 IPs