/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6354321

Overall trend worldwide is an increase in average temperature. Increased temperature affects weather patterns, resulting in extreme weather in certain areas.
Just because it's cold in North America doesn't mean the same is true everywhere. For example, Australia is experiencing record highs in temperature and Britain is currently flooding.
And the ice-caps are still thinning.

>>6354321
As far as I can gather, "Global Warming" is a misnomer. It was an early hypothesis which seems to have gotten popularized to the point that they won't change the name. What they really mean is anthropological climate change, meaning man induced. Apparently erratic weather is a symptom of ACC.
This is what I have gathered from my perspective as a layman.

On that note, anyone care to speculate why it is mostly older, politically-conservative people that reject anthropogenic climate change?

>meanwhile in the southern hemisphere
>haven't seen rain in days
>feels like a furnace due to the oppressive heat
>have to leave AC on 24/7
>poor thing can't even handle the amount heat anymore
>have to buy a more powerful AC
Fuck this fucking shit.

>>6354340
I don't know many people that reject climate change.
Just /sci/, which is mostly younger politically-liberal people

>>6354334
>This is what I have gathered from my perspective as a layman.
And that's why you shouldn't be posting in threads on a science board.

>>6354340
Well, they are more likely to have an invested interest in the countermeasures and they get their information in different places than young liberals.

>>6354340
Well, a lot of the bigshot Republicans make money on the kind of things, such as big oil, that are associated with global warming.

>>6354345
OP clearly isn't an expert so my summary of the facts from the layman's perspective is clearly valuable.

>>6354334

>old people have trouble with newfangled ideals

Film at 11?

>>6354352
>Neither of us know shit so my guess is valuable
Nope.

>>6354342
At least you have AC. I swear to fucking Christ my house is a hotbox that traps all the heat and never releases it (unless it's winter in which case it's suddenly thermophobic).
Doesn't help that I love right near a lake so it's always humid as fuck.

>>6354348
Exxon-Mobil has a section of its website for dedicated to combating climate change

>>6354352
don't feed the troll

>>6354355
What kind of insulation you got?

>mfw libshits think they can do anything about global warming
>mfw we could go back to 1730's level technology and china would laugh and say fuck you
>mfw china will continue to pump out enough emissions to literally choke their own citizens
>mfw India is not far behind
>mfw libshits seriously think they can do anything about global warming
>mfw libshits think this is worth wrecking the economy over
>mfw we are all doomed

>>6354354
My "guess" is going to become his "guess" when he's heard the facts from you mighty experts. So what's the difference?
If he were more of an expert then an expert insight would be more valuable since they could go into technical details.

>>6354362
And the best part?
>hate CO2 emissions
>want clean, reliable, plentiful power
>reject nuclear because muh Chernobyl, muh Fukushima, scary atoms killing our chilluns

>>6354362
just gotta put a third of our military budget into alternative energy research

global warming solved

>>6354359
More than likely shitty insulation. I'm moving in a week anyway, to a colder place.

>>6354367
>just throw money at it
>we don't need the military

>>6354372
While I'm glad we have the most powerful military in the world, we also spend as much on defense as the next 10 countries combined.

>>6354385
there is a reason for that you know

>>6354366
No, because if he learned from people with any knowledge on the subject, they would tell him things that are actually correct.

>>6354385

It's so easy to spot you libtards. Your solution to everything is just throw more taxpayer money and sing kumbaya with no concept of reality.

>>6354388
China isn't the reason. No country will ever go to war head to head with a country like the US again. Ever. War like that is outdated just like marching in lines was outdated at the time of the revolutionary war.

>>6354396
*civil

>>6354388
we could use all that money as investments in africa

>invest in an african country
>they start developing
>eventually become a "second world" country
>all of the other countries by now really want some investment money
>take money from successful investments, give it to other countries
>US influence in Africa outweighs Chinese influence by this point due to China looking for cheaper labor than Chinese people give

what's actually happening
>Obama visits Africa
>Hey, my ancestors lived here! This is great!
>Leaves
>China busy starting to invest in Africa

If the US falters too much, I think I'm just going to move to the east. Patriotism be damned, the US failed me not the other way around.

>>6354388
>what is nuclear deterrence
We don't need a fuckhueg military to defend ourselves against invasion.

>>6354397
No, I meant revolutionary.

>>6354348
>Implying that Republicans are Conservatives as a rule
>Implying that left wing investors don't invest in the energy sector

>>6354321
OP, as others have said, "weather" is not necessarily an indicator of climate trends. That being said I find it interesting how many climate change believers take weather events and suggest that they are an indicator of climate change while denying that weather is an indicator. I would say that weather trends ARE the "climate", although only with a significantly large timeline or data set. Furthermore, I would submit that there isn't a single point in history where the climate hasn't been changing.

I am not sold on the idea of anthropogenic climate change and I find the notion of scientific "consensus" both unscientific and dangerous to the credibility of science/the scientific community and society as a whole due to the potential impacts. Moreover the proxies for the temperature record of the last millennium have dubious usefulness at best. Add in the apparent manipulation of data (in statistically unsound ways) of climate data to show a desired result by climatologists, particularly those associated with East Anglia, and I would say that there isn't in fact a lot of "science" behind the climate models. There are also some confounding factors that in my opinion that suggest the warming trend of the last hundred and fifty years is at most padded or exacerbated by the industrial revolution and human activity, e.g. the end of the Little Ice Age.

tl;dr
OP has to make up his own mind about climate change as the science is far from settled and current weather anomalies really are a poor indicator of the climate at large. The current cold winter has shit to do with climate change one way or another.

>>6354398
and by east I mean east of the Americas (Europe or Asia), not necessarily the far east. should have been more clear.

>>6354404
line marching was used up to the civil war when rifling made it a terrible idea.

Global warming is the correct term, but a bit misleading. On average, yes, the world is warming. However, in some places, it might get colder due to disrupted weather patterns. A better word to use is climate change.

>>6354370
Oh no, we cant burn oil! But nuclear is scary, so we cant do that... and people get sick near wind farms, so no go! I hear that Hydro kills fish, so thats not good... and solar is expensive!

Really, people have to bite the bullet and put real money into green technology. How about fusion power? I remember reading somewhere that if we just put solars on a big patch of the Sahara we could have enough power for the entire world, but no, can't do that!

>>6354372
>Implying the US actually uses its military to protect itself
>Implying the military doesn't waste a third of its budget anyway

>>6354408
Sounds like you're making up a lot of reasons to convince yourself of something you wanted to believe to begin with. Your parents don't believe in climate change I assume?

>>6354395
I never suggested to get rid of the military or even cut it down by anything close to a significant degree.
Even 0.1% of the defense budget could go pretty far towards something else like, I don't know, education maybe?

>>6354396
>>6354400
>thinking I am referring to the fucking chinos landing on California like the allies invading Normandy
>not just the PRC invading the ROC and/or Japan or the DPRK finally invading the ROK
>>6354398
enjoy your Jim Crow western devil

>>6354418
That wouldn't happen either. Any country that wages real war will have to face every allied developed country. Even with our current technology we could probably own China just with drones.

>>6354411
>fusion power
Well, if the people at ITER and NIF pulled their thumbs out of their asses and did faster science, we'd have it by now.

>>6354415
My parents believe in climate change, not that it has any relevance to my opinion. And I haven't made anything up to convince myself of anything, I simply think that the evidence of anthropogenic climate change is shaky at best, with a few events related to the debate that pull my opinion the other way. Just because you believe that humans are destroying the stability of the climate doesn't mean I have to "make up" reasons to not believe it.

>>6354420
>That wouldn't happen either. Any country that wages real war will have to face every allied developed country.
I am sure china is shaking in their red boots at the thought of facing Europe armies'
Outside of the UK, Poland, Denmark and some other eastern europoor countries
They dopn't spend shit on their military
NATO is a joke
It's just the US UK Canada and Australia protects Europe organization
>Even with our current technology we could probably own China just with drones.
>and the award for biggest underestimation of the year goes to, ANON! CONGRATULATIONS! YOU WIN 10000 INTERNETS!!!!1!

>>6354429
You think we couldn't? A few tactical strikes at key military base locations and government buildings. War over. I have no doubt we already know where most of them are.

You think they have a way to counter real modern technology? Keep in mind most of the aircrafts used in the Iraq war are tech from the 80s

>>6354424

>I simply think that the evidence of anthropogenic climate change is shaky at best,

Lets not forget the claims made 10 and 20 years all these respected scientists were claiming both ice caps would disappear, and the Earth would be significantly hotter. We don't nearly have enough data from the past to assert this is a result of human activity (or to what extent) or if this is a simply the way Earth has varying climates throughout history.

>>6354437
And of course you have no standard for what you would consider "enough data" and you don't even know what the evidence is.

>>6354404
You're fucking wrong then. Line marching did not start to become outdated till rifling came into play. Even then the casualties were exacerbated by the fact that nobody bayonett charged, they just sat there reloading and firing.

>>6354436
>You think a modern military has a way to counter real modern technology designed to blow up sand people in mud houses?
yes I do

Did you not hear about the Iranians knocking one out of the sky with some simple GPS jamming device made by the Russians in the 90's

Israel has lost a few to Mohammadians with laptops

>>6354441
So we found a single cross-section of proxy data that supports our hypothesis; let's discard the rest and announce to the world that we're doomed

>>6354446
Nice fiction.

>>6354441

We don't have enough data to just enforce fiscal policies that affect millions of jobs, and could cost economies billions of dollars.

>>6354452
>Nice rhetorical device to indicate the ridiculousness of the linked post. A clever use of hyperbole.

I fixed that for you. Your Welcome.

>>6354461
See >>6354441

>>6354464

You sound like that guy off the big bang theory. What's is name? The guy who says Bazonka

>>6354452
>Nice use of a rhetorical device to illustrate the ridiculousness of the linked post. A clever use of hyperbole.

I fixed that for you

OP here
I was hoping for more citations

>>6354490
>wanting citations
>on motherfucking /sci/
>when they're motherfucking talking about motherfucking global motherfucking warming

>>6354344
>liberals
speak for yourself pal

>>6354500
I think that fact that you are the only one to respond to me says something.
Also I don't know where I sit on the political spectrum.
All my ideas contradict each other.

>>6354490
go look at temperature data for the last 20 years and tell us how cold it's gotten.
someone's already done that, but go check his work

>>6354411
And the reasoning among environmentalists against fusion goes like this: "It's expensive, might be a pipe dream and involves nucular enurgee, so it's shit. Better invest in real green technologies." Which doesn't happen due to aforementioned reasons.

Cue coal and oil burning, hail the status quo.

I just graduated with a basic geology degree, and I remember my hyrdology professor talking shit on the environmental students and basically telling them why global warming is a crock of shit.
I didn't really take any notice because I was probably trying to fingerbang the grill next to me, but I'm sure it had something to do with the extended history of ocean currents.

>>6354548
where could I do that?

Why care? Even if global warming is fake, oil is still finite, so we need to develop alternative fuel at any rate.

>>6355409
This looks like a decent place for it

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KORD/2013/1/28/MonthlyHistory.html

>>6354388
>there is a reason for that you know
Ike warned us... it's the Military Industrial Complex. Too many people make too much money from war.

>pic related... it's only gotten worse in the last 40yr

>>6354321
its not global warming is CLIMATE CHANGE! weird crap is happening EVERYWHERE

doesn't matter hot or cold, things are weird all over the place.

global warming is disinfo designed to make you think "oh its cold, so global warming is fake"


also this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c34U0Pwz4_c

>>6354321
Everyone seems to think that 'global warming' means that the temperature everywhere is just going to go up and up. 'Global warming' is really an inaccurate way of stating it. The right way to say it is 'There is more energy in the global system of weather'.

>>6355494
>it's a conspiracy!
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>6354340
One reason is because they change the temperature data, making the whole thing suspect.

Sources:
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

>>6354410
>>6354442

It might have still been used but it was still outdated.

"dditionally, the British had logistical problems whenever they operated away from the coast; they were vulnerable to guerilla attacks on their supply chains whenever they went far inland"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#The_British

>>6354490
Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact
on global warming
M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz2, and N. Paldor3

Demonstrates no statistical relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels.

Once upon a time they said that CO2 levels drove global temperature. When the temperatures stopped, they changed the name to Climate Change.

Attached Ref, Hansen 1988, shows the original theory in action.

>>6354321
The temperatures where you are locally doesn't mean that other places have the same temperature. -15c is 2 warmer than -17, but both are still below freezing.

>>6354415

Here is a specific example of data manipulation
>>6356111

>they change the temperature data
>they said that CO2 levels drove global temperature
>they changed the name
Whom do you mean by "they"??
>them envarnmennulists!

>>6356532

Mainstream Climate "Scientists." In the case of the temperature, specifically NASA GISS.

>>6354321

>>6356839
lel

>>6356821
William Jennings Bryan, pls leave

>>6358173

This does not address the issue of changing the temperature data as demonstrated in
>>6356111

>>6354321
How hard is it to understand the difference between regional weather and global average temperature?

>>6359299
I did not know there was a difference

>>6354321
Where you are might be cold

right here in California it's really freaking hot, we hardly had a winter and there's a drought going on

Global warming is actually somewhat of a misnomer, it's not that the entire world is warming up, it's that the climate is getting fucked

>>6359386
>the cold weather is proof of global warming
>the hot weather is proof of global warming
>the dry weather is proof of global warming
>the rainy weather is proof of global warming
>the snowy weather is proof of global warming
>the windy weather is proof of global warming

>>6359455
>I didn't understand what that anon just posted

>>6359386
>Global warming is actually somewhat of a misnomer, it's not that the entire world is warming up, it's that the climate is getting fucked

no... it's an accurate description since the global average temperature is what is rising. The risising temeratures are causing abnormal weather patterns.'

the rising average gloabal temperature is proof of global warming.

cold weather
hot weather
dry weather
wet weather
snowy weather
windy weather

are all consequences of distrupted weather patterns

>>6359742
What that anon is talking about is that all observations appear to be consistent with Global Warming/Climate Change theory. This makes the theory unflasifiable. Since a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific, it means that Global Warming/Climate Change theory is not scientific.

>>6359782

But the global temperature has been rising for 400 years -- since the end of the little ice age. On the other hand, it has not risen in more than a decade, despite a significant increase in CO2. So what does rising or non-rising temperature prove or disprove?

Geoengineering.

>>6359354
Say we have 3 numbers:
5 6 7
The average of these is 6.

Now say we have a different 3 numbers:
2 7 12
the mean of these new numbers is 7.

So in the second set, the average is higher, even though one of the values is lower than any of the original values.

That's how it works. the temperature in a given place can be very cold, but the average temperature is increasing. Global warming results in a larger variation in temperature.

>>6355557
>Implying conspiracy
>Implying this is not the same shit goddamn president Eisenhower warned about let alone political writers of every stripe
>implying that recent events aren't proving /x/ types to be right anyway

>>6354340
No brain plasticity. Past a certain age, it's harder for the brain to learn new things, because it assumes that, since it has survived so long with what it knows, it doesn't need to learn new stuff.

>>6359830
Whatta maroon.
The left-hand y axis shows temperature *anomalies*, not *temperatures*.
That is, it shows the difference between the temperature one year and the average temperature over the previous 30 years.
So, on average over that period, in each year, the average temperature was about 0.2 degrees higher than the average over the previous 30 years.

>>6359971

That's all you got??? Ad hominem? I didn't say the temperature hadn't gone up. In fact I said that overall, it had gone up over the last 400 years. Did I say the temperature hadn't gone up in 30 years? No. So why did you put words in my mouth?

What I said is it hadn't gone up for more than a decade despite significant CO2 increase. So I made a very basic assertion: global temperature plateau (which almost all scientists; both believers and skeptics alike agree upon; Google it)

Yet you denied it without reflection. That shows an inability to reason in an objective fashion. This kind of knee jerk reaction suggests that you feel threatened by facts that don't fit a preconceived world-view.

>>6359935

I would suggest that it is because they seen the temperature data change over time; suggesting something is amiss.
>>6356111

>>6359912
>the same shit goddamn president Eisenhower warned about
Lrn2military-industrial complex

>>6360048
>an insult is an ad hominem
Pls stop this
It's not
Saying "don't listen to him he's Gay" or "black" or "from Norway" or "he was a Nazi" is an ad hominem

Saying your a moron is not an ad hominem. It's just an insult.

>>6360061
Fair enough, its an insult.

The most vague way I can answer this is that weather is not the same thing as climate.

>>6360522
What the fuck does that mean

>>6354398
you know a "second world country" is a communist state, right?

>>6359293
>corrections to inaccuracies in temperature data, making the whole thing suspect
William Jennings Bryan, pls stop now

>>6360572
Climate is weather averaged out over a decade or more. Weather is chaotic and dependent on short-term factors we neither understand nor have the capacity to compute, but by taking the average, you can look at the comparatively simple long-term trends, which we can vaguely predict.

Also consult the relevant xkcd 1321 for what this "record" entails.

>>6356111
Actually what you're seeing in your pic is the effect of global warming. The mean of the dataset has changed since recent years steadily have been above the earlier mean. And the mean is your baseline 0. Of course the graphs look wonky when they are overlayed at 0 since they are based on different 0s calculated from expanding datasets.

IOW 1880 is now further below the mean since the mean increased due to warming.

>>6359299
So basically, you think that if it's colder in your town, it must be colder all across the globe?

How do you people manage to eat and breathe and operate computers

>>6360061
Who cares? It still means you're so insecure in your argument you can't back it up with facts and have to sling insults to try and bully the other side down.

>>6354321
Hotter air holds on to moisture. That alone explains droughts. Now when the Earth tilts away from the sun, the water suddenly cools the air dramatically. Usually you see very little change when the Earth tilts, but when there is a lot of water in the air, it drops in temperature faster, as light hits it less frequently. The air usually becomes cold before the water in the air does. Still the water becomes even cooler and since there is even more, it manages to cool off the air when the air tries to warm up. The air is thing blow away. Just remember, you aren't getting the air in your state, Fall usually brings in hot or cold air and it causes your area to have dramatic climate change. That creates a domino effect.

>>6360589

Wow! You ignored information that does not fit your belief system. Then call me William James Bryan.

"Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people."

>>6360809
Jennings Bryan

>>6360589

>corrections to inaccuracies in temperature data, making the whole thing suspect

Why the ad hoc excuse without justification or evidence? Look at this GIF of two temperature graphs from NASA GISS. Why the significant change?

I'm sorry that actual evidence challenges your faith in the Gospel of Gaia.

>>6360589
You said:
>corrections to inaccuracies in temperature data, making the whole thing suspect

The actual quote was:
>One reason is because they change the temperature data, making the whole thing suspect.

Why do you deliberately mis-quote to set up a strawman argument? Is it an inability to use logic and evidence?

>>6354392
Alright shitlord, then what is the fucking right answer.

>>6354388
>2014
>thinking the exorbitant military budget isn't there just to make individual contractors wealthy

sheeple pls

all their adjustments
are cooling the past
warming the present
fake maximum warming

>>6360650
>being this buthurt over a fucking name
>on motherfucking 4chan
nigger

>>6360841
the changes were corrections, fucktard
now go be more deliberately clueless

>>6362767
>i-i-i-its not like the scientists could purposefully alter the data in order to get more funding and push for more progressive intervention from government like the United Nations wants to finally go after those big mean oil companies who purposefully ruined our environment

>>6363050
>It's not like there's considerably more money in claiming human activity has no effect on the climate

>>6363056
>it's not like Progressives always want to control more of everything
Do you even agenda 21?

>>6363072
>agenda 21
>bad
Pick one conservatard

>>6363078
>mfw someone wanted a one world government near me

>>6354362

70's: "There's no such thing as climate change"
80's: "There's climate change but it isn't manmade"
90's: "Climate change is manmade but it isn't serious."
00's: "Climate change is a serious issue but we can't do shit about it."
Now: "Climate change is serious but we can't solve it alone"

Jesus Christ but that drum you guys are playing is wearing thin. Climate change is a serious manmade issue which we need to start solving today and the fucking Chinese are super amenable to diplomatic solutions, they're just not amenable to solutions that keep them in a permanent subaltern position because they were late to the party. As long as we're not willing to make concessions, we're all going to fucking drown.

>>6363098
>calling it climate change instead of global cooling to try and not make yourself look stupid

>>6363050
Well lets see. Here's an NOAA temperature graph.

Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Don't believe it? Check the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6364205
Graph here.

>>6364209

Why has the temperature changed so much?

Let's ask the EPA. They say there were the most heatwaves in the 1930s NOT in the 2000s. But what do newspapers say?

The Courier-Mail Monday 6 May 1940:

"By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe."

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40934044?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html

>>6364220
What about the cold in the 1970s? And the heat in the 30s and 40s?

Warm in the 1930s and 40s, a huge drop in temps up to 1969:

Here's a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report showing that 20th century temperatures peaked in the late 1930′s

>>6364223

Anyone else?

The CIA thought things were getting colder.

documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf

>>6364233

So did a NASA scientist.

1971: A NASA Scientist Predicts a New Ice Age.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids=144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+1971&author=By+Victor+CohnWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming

>>6364239

So why does history disagree with the "corrected temperature data?"

>>6364209
Why do historical graphs disagree with "corrected temperature data?"

What does Occam's Razor say?

>>6362767

REALLY? All just random mistakes, says the man who so rapidly resorts to insults....

Then Explain:
>>6364205
>>6364209
>>6364220
>>6364223
>>6364233
and
>>6364233

So according to you, NASA, NAS, CIA, EPA, and Courier-Mail somehow all got together, over decades of time to make THE SAME stupid mistakes.

Why am I skeptical?

>>6354321
The real answer lies here:

>>6364271

>>6364245

>Occam's Razor

Yeah, what's the quantitative unit of simplicity?

Occam's Razor is bad science and you should feel bad for applying a 600-year-old philosopher's ramblings

>>6364277

That's all you got? You ignore an entire history of evidence on climate and historical graphs of temperatures?

Pretending that history doesn't contradict the modern story doesn't make the evidence go away.

OP here You have all done nothing but confuse me. I am now even more unsure of what position to take on global warming.

I don't know who to believe

Literally every major research organization unanimously agrees that human-caused climate change is happening.

I'm a little skeptical of random people on the internet who claim they know better.

>>6360865
See >>6359782
> it's an accurate description since the global average temperature is what is rising

>>6360809
>call me William James Bryan
Don't you have a Monkey Trial to prosecute somewhere?

friendly reminder the UN itself said the warming is slowing down

>>6364530

I'd be a little skeptical of research scientists and institutions whose livelihood and legitimacy rest on the validity of AGW/Climate Change

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' - Upton Sinclair

>>6366545
Is that true? The climatologists are paid simply to gather and analyze climate data, and there's more money on the side of "the status quo is fine".

>>6366591

I wish it were that idealistic. There's a tremendous amount of data involved and there's all sort of games one can play with data... to get the desired answer one wants to get to keep your salary going

See here:
>>6362372

I can tell you from personal experience, as I worked at an institution that, amongst other things, was one of the top "research institutions" in "climate change." People would bend over backwards to get the "right answer." I talked to a guy who quit the modeling team because they put so much pressure on him to develop a computer model that reached the "right answer."

When a person's salary is on the line -- and they will commit scientific funding suicide if they get the "wrong answer", people will find a way get the right answer.

Science has been bastardized before and we are seeing it again -- a new Lysenkoism.

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

>>6366668

That should be see here:
>>6364271

>>6364271
>NASA, NAS, CIA, EPA
All government agencies. Hemm I wonder how they could all come to the same conclusion.

It's not like careers could be on the line due to highly political decisions

>>6366699

NAS is the National Academy of Sciences; not a government agency. The EPA data came out 40 years later when Global Warming is quite established, meaning it had no political reason to make the highest heatwave decade in the 1930s.

>>6354321
Parts of the world are currently experiencing a few cold snaps, but global mean temperatures are most definitely increasing

Does anyone know why the earth stopped warming in the Middle Ages?

Prior to the events of January 2014, several studies on the connection between extreme weather and the polar vortex were published suggesting a link between climate change and increasingly extreme temperatures experienced by mid-latitudes (e.g., central North America). This phenomenon can be understood to result from the rapid melting of polar sea ice, which replaces white, reflective ice with dark, absorbent open water (i.e., the albedo of this region has decreased). As a result, the region has heated up faster than other parts of the globe. With the lack of a sufficient temperature difference between Arctic and southern regions to drive jet stream winds, the jet stream may have become weaker and more variable in its course, allowing cold air usually confined to the poles to reach further into the mid latitudes.

Wang, L. (2010). "Downward Arctic Oscillation signal associated with moderate weak stratospheric polar vortex and the cold December 2009". Journal of Geophysical Research 37

>>6366805
>temperatures are increasing
>graph ends at 2005

everytime.jpg

>>6366668
>great quad btw!
>Science has been bastardized before and we are seeing it again -- a new Lysenkoism.

not again... always. that factor plus the inevitable inertia of ossified barnacles clinging to an outdated theory obstructing the forward progress of the ship of science

>>6368465

There have definitely been theories that relate the Polar Vortex to changing climate.

>>6368478

Thx!