/sci/ - Science & Math

An example of a poorly-placed, poorly-maintained satellite temperature sensor and MMTS unit, placed next to a private home's air conditioning unit, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. The placement of thousands of these units near man-made heat sources had the effect of skewing temperature readings.

Example of an MMTS unit, placed directly above road pavement at the University of Arizona, Tucson. A desert environment, summer temperatures in Tucson are in excess of 100o; the sun can and does heat the pavement at considerably higher temperatures.

Hi /pol/.

>>6185862
Why does that graph stop at 1996?

you probably think the holocaust wasnt real too

In principle there should be no incentive to lie. Scientists study a thing and that's it. If global warming turned out to be wrong all those scientists would still have a job studying the climate. The job of a scientist isn't predicated on the trends they find in the data. They ask questions, test them and report the findings.

Now in practice some scientists that have staked their reputations on some specific line of research might have some trouble if the line of research turns out to be a dead end. They'd have to retool their career but they wouldn't be out of a job.

>>6185871
Furthermore, why is it wrong?

>>6185855
>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth’s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/
Nice unbiased source there broheim.

>>6185876

Can you show that it is biased or are you going to make that claim without offering any evidence?

These kinds of threads are why nobody like you, /pol/.

>>6185875
>In principle there should be no incentive to lie.

What principle?

>>6185883
>>6185869
*/x/

>>6185871
Actually the dates are all wrong in that graph. I don't think it is a good comparison.

I have a question, why hasn't the sea risen by 20 feet as Al Gore predicted in his global warming movie?

Why haven't any of these people's predictions come true?

I thought this was science? If the experiments aren't putting out accurate results doesn't that mean you either fucked up the experiment or your experiment is garbage.

Where is the skepticism? 20 feet of water, /sci/? Isn't that alarmist?

>>6185889
Two halves of the same whole.

>>6185913
Since when is Al Gore a scientist in the field of climate change?

>>6185892
I didn't even notice at that. One is trended over 250 years and the other is trended over 15.

>>6185869
>>6185889
>>6185883
>>6185921
/x/ = ghosts dun it
/pol/ = jews dun it

>>6185922
He says his results are from scientists.

>>6185924
Yeah, also the dates don't go far back enough otherwise you would see the cyclical nature of climate.

Whoever made that graph is a douchebag.

>>6185929
So does every single climate change denier, it doesn't mean they're right. Al Gore brought attention to it by being alarmist and pretty much outright lying in some cases.

>>6185925
/sci/ = Al Gore was right again!
/x/ = ghosts dun it
/pol/ = jews dun it

>>6185935
If your front man is a liar, why would you believe his alarmist hypothesis?

>>6185941
Al gore is most certainly NOT the "front man" of global warming.

>>6185945
That is an opinion. I think he is.

Who do you think is the front man?

>>6185947
There is no front man. Nobody is leading this cause except the scientists who agree this is happening.
>That is an opinion. I think he is.
Doesn't mean you're right.

>>6185951
There is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion. Al Gore definitely popularized global warming with his film and made the topic mainstream.

>>6185952
Yes, he did, and I respect him for that, but that doesn't mean that everything he said was absolutely representative of what was actually happening.

Also look how little we add CO2 into the atmosphere. 2.9%.

What has been the temperture increase? 0.7 degrees celcius which is under what the IPCC's lowest prediction was.

Also haven't you guys heard of climategate?

There is a lot of supporting evidence that indicates that the Climate Change agenda is and always has been a fraud9. Why is it called a fraud? An event now referred to as "Climategate" publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in the "climate change" debate: its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the "warming" into Global Warming: they were responsible for analyzing and collating the measurements of temperature from around the globe from the present to the distant past.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/latest-news/341-epa-rebuttal-man-made-co2-global-warming-is-a-fraud.html

>>6185956
He and his "scientists" were way off. That should be enough to make you skeptical if the foundation of the mainstream climate change movement was BS.

>>6185962
Except nearly every single scientific paper published and peer reviewed on the topic of global warming supports the idea that it is both real and caused by man.

Why the fuck are you focusing so much on Al Gore when the science is what actually matters?

>>6185965
>Except nearly every single scientific paper published and peer reviewed on the topic of global warming supports the idea that it is both real and caused by man.

No they don't. The consensus is the opposite.

There are 2500 scientists associated with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). All 2500, the media believed, endorsed the IPCC’s position on catastrophic global warming predictions. Bad factoid #1: the 2500 scientists were only associated with the IPCC. They did not endorse the IPCC’s position. Some even vehemently disagreed.

Seeking a powerful number they could use more easily, the pundits found a study conducted by the University of Illinois. More than 10,000 earth scientists participated in the study, but the researchers conducting the study highlighted the views of only a cherry-picked 77 of them. Of those, 75 stated their belief of human-caused global warming. Voila! 75 is 97% of 77. Bad factoid #2: The press passed this off as 97% of the world’s scientists believe in manmade climate change. Wow. That's a big number that's easy to pass on.

http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-lie-of-global-warming-consensus-among-scientists-came-to-pass

>>6185967
I wonder what it's like being so astoundingly full of shit
http://thecontributor.com/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart

>>6185959
First of all, anybody who cares about anything called "Climategate" is interested in politics, not science. If a piece of research turns out to be wrong, it's wrong. It happens all the time.

Second, climate change is about future trends. If you're pointing at information from a decade ago, you're missing the point. That number, for instance, has increased by 30% over the last decade.

Third, the magnitude of the change in CO2 is unimportant. What matters is the impact of that change on the dynamics of the system. A human being can probably (barely) survive a wet-bulb temp of 34C. 35C kills you. 1 little degree is the difference between life and death because of the dynamics of human heat radiation. So, if you think a 1% increase in global CO2 emissions is insignificant simply because the number is small, then you need to stop wasting your time on /sci/ and read a book.

>>6185959

This implication "small amount of something implies small impact of said thing" is some of the dumbest bullshit I've read concerning these climate topics.

>>6185970
Well it is obvious that one person is lying to promote an agenda and one person is not.

Since we have already agreed that al gore lied I think you should be skeptical of this guy.

Basically we are taking our ideas in faith not by any science. You should at least realize that.

>>6185976

>Second, climate change is about future trends. If you're pointing at information from a decade ago, you're missing the point. That number, for instance, has increased by 30% over the last decade.

None of those future trend predicitons by the IPCC have turned out accurate.

>Third, the magnitude of the change in CO2 is unimportant. What matters is the impact of that change on the dynamics of the system. So, if you think a 1% increase in global CO2 emissions is insignificant

CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature change. did you look at the graph? The Earth was much warmer yet CO2 was way lower in the middle ages.

Then look at the end of the little ice age. CO2 is going way up but temperatures are way down.
>>6185952

>>6185981
>None of those future trend predicitons by the IPCC have turned out accurate.

I don't care. My point, which you ignored, is that the science of climate change and the politics of climate change are two different animals. I'm not well versed enough on the climate science to have an informed opinion. I do know, however, that if people are talking about "x-gate," they aren't talking about science, they're talking about politics. And this is /sci/, not /pol/.

>CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature change. did you look at the graph? The Earth was much warmer yet CO2 was way lower in the middle ages.

Again, I don't care. I'm saying that if you think that a small change is insignificant simply by virtue of it's magnitude, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of system dynamics.

>>6185981
>CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature change
So because it's not the only factor, it must have no effect? Why bother spouting this shit on the science board when you're clearly ignorant of real science?

>>6185952

No, he only did that in America, the rest of the world don't care at all about Al Gore.

>>6185988

Assuming that there is global warming. Cutting CO2 won't stop it.

>>6185989
Look, the IPCC caught lying about climate change is important because you take what they say about climate change seriously as science. Basically anything they say about global warming is suspect therefore you can't use their "science" in arguments.

>Again, I don't care. I'm saying that if you think that a small change is insignificant simply by virtue of it's magnitude, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of system dynamics.

Dude, speak English. A word salad doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look insecure to people who don't sniff their own farts.

>>6185991
Yet europe has carbon taxes. Who duped you guys?

>>6185993
>Dumb it down a shade, I don't get what you're trying to say.

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

>>6185993

We listened to actual scientists and experts instead of a politician.

Also >>6185989 's post was hardly unclear.

He's saying that the systems at play here are far, far more complicated than just "More CO2 = More Heat" in a simple ratio. Which is what you implied.

Also, the fact that you're complaining so heavily about predictions being off betrays your very political approach to this matter. Predicting the future in climate science is incredibly difficult, I'd actually go so far as to say that if our current media, political and voting population didn't demand simple "What will happen" explanations for absolutely every issue no one would bother trying to predict it for scientific purposes.

Unfortunately you need to give some predictions to build up any political momentum on an issue. It's a side effect of how the media sells papers and disperses information that the most widely reported predictions (And there are a lot) are also the most extreme and therefore probably some of the least accurate.

However, I'll quickly point out that the predictions have little to do with the case for Global Warming, since the evidence is gathered and analyzed retrospectively.

>>6185997
Well, the crux of the man made global warming is our CO2 emissions cause warming.

If the globe is warming.
>the systems at play here are far, far more complicated than just "More CO2 = More Heat" in a simple ratio

And we don't know what is causing it cause the systems are so complex. And we can only observe past recordings then there isn't anything that can be done about it.

It is okay if you believe in global warming. But the man made part is bunk. The predictions are also bunk.

The idea that we can do anything about it is also bunk since we obviously don't know what is causing it because of the complexity.

So I don't think we have much to disagree upon then.

I'd be willing to accept slight warming being blown out of proportion by special interests in order to raise taxes on people.

>>6186001

I didn't say we didn't know what was causing it, I said it was extremely complicated and there are so many factors that we're aware of (And some I'm sure we're not aware of) that making accurate predictions over a long period of time is incredibly difficult. The same is true of a lot of things, it doesn't mean the predictions are useless, it means you take them with a pinch of salt.

But I'm done now, it just seems like you're on a mission to willfully misinterpret anything I say. You aren't actually interested in the issue, you're interested in twisting any aspects of the issue around to support the preconceived notions you had before posting this thread.

The fact that you're happy to make grandstanding and absolute declarations like " the man made part is bunk. The predictions are also bunk." demonstrates that you really don't have any basic grasp of the scientific method.

>>6186003

>I didn't say we didn't know what was causing it

What is causing it then?

>>6186009
Man made carbon gases

>>6186015
Well the middle ages graph shows contrary evidence. How do you square that circle?

>>6186017
But it doesn't show contrary evidence. It fits perfectly with what climatologists understand about how and why the earth's temperature changes.

Don't see why all the denier bloggers are so interested in it.

>>6186023
>It fits perfectly with what climatologists understand about how and why the earth's temperature changes.

How so?
And this is the graph I'm talking about just to be clear:
>>6185952

>>6186033
I know what you're talking about. So do climatologists.

>>6186038
Well by observing the graph I see that CO2 has an insignificant correlation with global temperatures. And only about 50 years out of 2000 do those graphs match.

So CO2 must not be related to global temperature if the graph is accurate.

>>6186041
Then why not present your finding that will undoubtedly change the way we view climate science as we know it? Why not claim your nobel prize?

Because "I have no knowledge on the subject but I looked at a graph" means absolutely nothing. The greenhouse effect isn't an opinion by the way, it's something you can easily replicate in a lab.

>>6186041
Are you being willfully obstinate or are you just terrible at analysis? That graph says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. What it says is that CO2 wasn't connected with THOSE changes in temperature. All it means is that temperature can vary irrespective of atmospheric CO2 content.

When a scientific issue becomes a political issue, no more science can get done. I wish /pol/ would just STFU and let /sci/ study the data. Why the hell do people care so much? Whether or not global warming is happening, our response to it has given us tremendous benefits in the forms of energy efficiency and reduce pollution. I don't know about you, but I like my LED light bulbs and my longer lasting batteries.

>>6186054
>everyone's now using fluorescent lighting in their homes because it's cheaper
>mfw it's incredibly unflattering lighting and makes their faces look like shit

>>6186057
>everyone
Not me, I use LED. Cut my energy bill by about $12 a month when I switched from fluorescent. In a year I will have completely regained what I spent through energy savings, and the bulbs will last another 15 years or so.

>>6186046
Obama got a nobel peace prize. The prize means NOTHING. It is completely subjective.

>Because "I have no knowledge on the subject but I looked at a graph" means absolutely nothing
What knowledge do you have on the subject of climate change? Are you an expert?

>The greenhouse effect isn't an opinion by the way, it's something you can easily replicate in a lab.

A small lab isn't the entire earth. A lab experiment is simplistic and truncated.

>>6186050
>That graph says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

So previously rain falls down toward the ground. The next 50 years from today it shoots out into space. Therefore gravity always falls up into space?

I'm making an analogy here. You can't ignore past results when coming up with a theory otherwise it isn't a good theory.

>>6186054
>Why the hell do people care so much? Whether or not global warming is happening

Because science? Because Scientists and the media are lying to us if it isn't? Because this is a gaint waste of resources that could be going elsewhere? Because people are trying to shut down energy plants and tax people for a lie? Quality of life will go down with higher energy costs and taxes. Global warming is being used to drive people into poverty.

Our response to it has given us tremendous benefits in the forms of energy efficiency and reduce pollution.

No it hasn't. Especially since CO2 isn't a pollutant.

I don't know about you, but I like my LED light bulbs and my longer lasting batteries.

Those were developed on their own. There was no crack team of climatologists inventing those technologies to protect us from .7 degrees of warming.

>>6186061
And if you simply observed this graph you'd see that solar output has no correlation with earth's temperature.

Oh wait, doesn't that sound stupid? Doesn't it sound stupid to say the sun doesn't affect temperatures because of a graph? That's because it is. You really oughta look into these things before spouting off your blogger mantra. We've all heard this shit before.

>>6186061
If it hadn't been turned into a political issue, you wouldn't care, and you wouldn't come on to a science board to talk about how much you hate science. And yes, commercialized LED bulbs and research into longer lasting batteries were both funded through grants related to green energy. I'd give you a source, but you'd just deny that too. Troll harder.

>>6186063
It's sun activity mixed with cloud coverage.

Also what about cloud coverage:
On December 10, 2009, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth’s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/

>>6186064
I don't hate science. I hate people who aren't skeptical.

>And yes, commercialized LED bulbs and research into longer lasting batteries were both funded through grants related to green energy. I'd give you a source, but you'd just deny that too.

Where those government grants?

>>6186067
>It's sun activity mixed with cloud coverage.
Please provide a link to the peer reviewed paper showing this.

>>6186067
I am skeptical, but I'm not a lunatic and I know not to take my information from sources like drroyspencer.com
And yes, they were government grants that resulted in a very good commercial product that is now saving me money.

>>6186067
>showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections.
So...then why doesn't the earth warm and cool on an eleven year cycle?

>>6186071
Well the inventions due to the grants may be nice, but the government stole money from people and redistributed it.

I don't approve of theft. Even if it is going to a good cause.

>>6186072
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=cloud+cover+global+temperature&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=

>>6186074
cloud coverage blocks out the sun and decreases temperatures. it also has something to do with the earth's magnetic fields.

>>6186061
>You can't ignore past results when coming up with a theory otherwise it isn't a good theory.

If people were saying that temperature was only a function of CO2 content, then you'd be right. Unfortunately for your argument, there isn't a legitimate climatologist on the planet saying that. There are, however, plenty of charlatans who are happy to say that if it furthers their political agenda.

>>6186078
>taxes = theft
good god man just stfu.
Cloud coverage increases temperature. Look it up then shoot yourself.

>>6186080
What happens when you don't pay your taxes?

>Cloud coverage increases temperature. Look it up then shoot yourself.

Not exactly.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

>>6186081
True

>>6186078
>cloud coverage blocks out the sun and decreases temperatures. it also has something to do with the earth's magnetic fields.
That's not an explanation as to why we don't see climate changing in step with measurable changes in solar activity.

>>6186083
Neither is CO2.

Obviously there is no consensus and it is an intricate puzzle that no one has solved so we should stop taxing people for it and pretending like it is the end of the world.

>>6186082
*sigh* yes, in the day there is a cooling effect, in the night there is a warming effect from clouds, but overall the clouds, or more specifically the water vapor in the clouds, has a net increase in the heat of our atmosphere.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/watervapor01.htm

>>6186078
I'll ask again: Please provide a link to the peer reviewed paper showing this.

>>6186084
>Obviously there is no consensus
>it is an intricate puzzle that no one has solved
Are you this delusional or are you lying to get a rise out of us?

>>6185866
>>6185868
>WELL SHUCKS NO WONDER THE GAT DANG WEATHERMAN IS WRONG ALL THE TIME, ITS DEM GLOBAL WARMERS TRYING TO SKEW WITH THE TEMURCHURS FOR THE PAST DECADES
>BACK IN MY DAY THE WEATHERMAN KNEW HIS STUFF AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY BOUT NO GLOBAL WARMERS CAUSE THEY ALL PUT THEM THERMOMETERS IN THE RIGHT SPOT

Please kill yourself.

>>6186084
>Obviously there is no consensus and it is an intricate puzzle that no one has solved
What about the thousands of peer reviewed papers saying otherwise?