/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6790503
Veritasium made a pretty cool video about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

>>6790503

Here is a graph of the U.S. Historical Climate Network data: all the stations vs. just Urban. You can see that the urban data diverges upward creating a 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit difference.

The NOAA only "corrects" for this effect by 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6790503
The only point worth making in a climate change argument is that unless you're a climate change scientist, you don't get a fucking say.

>>6790503

There has been no warming in 19 years or 26 years; depending on whether you are looking at surface temperatures or troposphere. temperatures. RSS data shows no warming for 18 years.

McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

>>6790503

The theory is suspect. Here, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen discusses it.

http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw

>>6791083
>no warming in 19 years or 26 years
>no warming for 18 years
the ice is melting by magic

>>6791091
Satellite images just showed the opposite at antarctica

>>6791104
>antarctica
anything closer to home?

>the number of data stations has drastically reduced
Probably not, don't see why the stations would be getting fewer in this day and age.
Any loss that happens on first world would surely be compensated on developing areas many times over.

>some of the data stations were found to be in urban areas next to potential heat sources that might alter data
Correct but since "your family members you" came up with it so have scientists and it's corrected out from models.

>muh volcanos introducing more green house emissions and altering climate more than humans could ever do
Simply not true
>In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources.[58][59][60]
Although large volcanic eruptions can directly alter climate if they were to happen, like Yellowstone super volcano eruption.

>cars have been proven to be less than .001% to blame for climate altering emissions
>Total world energy use per sector was in 2008 industry 28%, transport 27% and residential and service 36%. Division was about the same in the year 2000.
Cars are a significant portion of the "transportation" in addition of being run almost exclusively from oil compared to general energy production which includes large portions of non emission power sources.

>there hasn't been any warming for the last few decades
Simply not true, last decade was warmest on record since reliable data is available from 19th century onwards

>>6791149

False. Only a 0.1 degree correction for a 0.6 degree effect.
>>6790963

>>6791149
>>there hasn't been any warming for the last few decades
>Simply not true, last decade was warmest on record since reliable data is available from 19th century onwards

False, the Medieval Warming period was warmer. As was the Roman warming period, as was the Minoan warming period as was...

>>6791173
your image comes from a conspiracy blog
Scientist probably have a pretty good reason why the conpensate and how much
Showing blogs and yelling conspiracy doesn't actually refute that.

>>6791183
>19th century

Opinion discarded

>>6791183

And the Medieval warming period was global in extent.

>>6791187
Pathetic ad hominem response to protect your religious cult.

>>6791195
>no warming in the last few decades
>but last decade was literally warmest on record
>2000 years ago was warmer!!
Opinion discarded

>>6791195
top ebin xPPPPPP

>>6791149
>>there hasn't been any warming for the last few decades
>Simply not true, last decade was warmest on record since reliable data is available from 19th century onwards

Nope. Statistical analysis says you're wrong.
>>6791083

>>6791198
>points to an image of literally warmest years on record
Global warming doesn't stop the moment next year isn't warmer than the previous on absolute terms
Opinion discarded

>>6791201

Which part of a statistical analysis showing 19 years of no warming, do you not understand? A rigorous statistical analysis, by definition, is not cherry picking.
>>6791083

Your theory has failed.

>nb4 We did after-the-fact model tweaking to get the right answer.
Anyone can predict the right answer after the fact.

>>6791183
What is up with the x axis' scale in this graph, it starts at 100yr intervals and then jumps up to 500yr intervals at the furthest date. I know that ice core analysis isn't precise enough to judge every 200 or so years at the deeper samples, but at least put it in a correct scale.

If you change the x axis' scale, you can see that the increase in temperature between 208 years ago and 95 years ago is nearly vertical.

>tdlr; this is a terrible graph

>>6790503
>the number of data stations has drastically reduced
>some of the data stations were found to be in urban areas next to potential heat sources that might alter data

This has been confirmed and the reason given was to save funds.

>>6790511
i really find his reactions about that stuff childish. he disappointed me a bit

woodfortrees.org has a wonderful tool that lets you forge your own climate scenario