/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6792434
I wonder if also satellite measurements are flawed by this.

>>6792434
>being this easily swayed by obvious propaganda

I bet you love the Daily Mail.

>>6792434
Just discovered Anthony Watt's blog have we?

>>6792446
>obvious propaganda

the scientific data, on vetting, has proved faulty and fraudulent time and time again. this is not propaganda.

yes, the earth is still coming out of the ice age. but these fucking climatist cuckoos are blowing shit out of proportion in order for POLITICAL nazi socialist agendas.

>>6792451
>the scientific data, on vetting, has proved faulty and fraudulent time and time again.

No it hasn't.

>this is not propaganda.

Yes it is.

>>6792434

Hey OP, protip: don't get your information about science from conspiracy theory blogs.

>>6792454
>Yes it is
nice. you sound like the one spewing propaganda.

the earth is coming out of an ice age.

I bet you also believe that osama bin laden orchestrated 9/11

>>6792461
see
>>6792455

good advice

AGW is the best documented fraud in the history of modern science.

>>6792434
Global Warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the world. It's basically just giant BS nonsense that was designed to enrich the few.

How much of Melbourne is low albedo impervious surface?

>>6792434

The last time you guys did this, it blew up in your faces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth#Reactions

>>6792619
Okay I read from the wiki article that the urban heat island effect did not effect the calculation of the mean. But what if the urban heat island effect occurs also in rural spots, with a very slight heat effect?
And again nobody says anything about the fact that you simply cannot mix 100 year analog measurements with 30 year satellite measurements.
Also 0.8 degrees celsius over the last 50 years are NOT scary.

>>6792665

oh yeah not scary at all.

this definitely won't get worse and worse until earth goes into a runaway greenhouse effect akin to venus.

nope nothing to worry about.

>>6792674
You're right, it won't.
There's too many variables left unaccounted for in that scenario.

>>6792434
"global warming" is a cult

>>6792674
>imlpygin its a linear or exponential thing
>ilmyping molten ice doesnt cool down the ocean

And what if global warming were wrong, if it didn't exist. Would that make it OK to pump out whatever shit into the atmosphere? To pollute the environment?
People go out of their way to try to justify their bad lifestyle, just because it is more comfortable to drive their over-sized car to the 2-minutes away shopping center.

>>6792687
*fips tedora*

>>6792696
This so much. Climate Change deniers are like fatties who find out they have hypothyroidism. From that point on they are immune to criticism because they found that one reason that MIGHT explain parts of their problem.

>>6792700
are you kidding me? It's the climatards who are fedora wearers and want to push their liberal agenda down our throats.


>>6792696
someone in a cult would say that you have a bad lifestyle too, for not being in their cult

>>6792619
>standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers
well at least they fuck it off on themselves

>>6792711
yeah, well how do you deal with the fact that 'climate scientists' falsify their data so they can get funding.

Hypothroidism is very real btw and you shouldn't make fun of it.

>>6792727
>you shouldn't make fun of it.
lol where do you think that you are?

>>6792619
>The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations.
that's retarded. short term variation trends are exactly what you DONT want in this kind of examinations.
>This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia
This is a joke, right? How am I supposed to take them serious?

>>6792727

>>6792619

>"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

>>6792743
he says the other methods are madness. and his method produces the same result. doesnt this mean that his method is madness, too?

>>6792732
It's not retarded it's sampling. Standard practice in many fields.

No it is not a joke. Big confidence intervals is better than no data.

>>6792696
>And what if global warming were wrong, if it didn't exist. Would that make it OK to pump out whatever shit into the atmosphere?

in that case there's literally NO reason to stop blasting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

>>6792752
>Standard practice in many fields.

yeah, in bullshit fields like sociology and other social 'sciences'.

every physicist or chemist would straight up laugh at you for using data with big confidence intervals as evidence

>>6792757
What are you talking about, it really, even in physics you have branches that are highly statistical with errors of several 100%. As long as the method is transparent and the error is considered, it's absolutely valid.

>>6792761
when that kind of shit is the primary evidence yo uuse for backing up your theory, it's not.

you don't do controlled experiments that you can repeat indefinitely to observe possible trends on climate stuff. you just observe it in the field, where millions of variables can and will influence your observations.

sure you can use questionable data to back up models. just don't claim that these models are objective truth and everybody questioning them is satan incarnate.

>>6792768

>you don't do controlled experiments that you can repeat indefinitely to observe possible trends on climate stuff. you just observe it in the field, where millions of variables can and will influence your observations.

How Can Sampling Be Real If Our Statistics Aren't Real?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

>>6792434
because asphalt doesn't exist in the real world!

>>6792826
>implying those lines are to scale

Op is retarded but that isn't the way to counter his argument

>>6792753

theres lots of reasons.

millions, in fact.

they're all green, but they aren't photosynthesizing jack shit.

>>6792834

there isn't any non-retarded way to counter climate change deniers, they're too retarded to deal with simple reasoning.

>>6792488
What money is there in making it up? My understanding is the money is in denying it.

>>6792862
>What money is there in making it up?

you think anybody would buy the tons of 'eco-friendly' products with 'low carbon footprint' if they turned out to be completely pointless

>>6792862
What money is there in denying it?

As for making it up; ignoring taxes, politics and using it to eliminate competition, you have incentives for things like solar cells, which actually pollute a lot, you have various taxpayer-funded projects which cost in the order of billions (no joke) and provide no useful benefit and require loads of benefit, you have a whole reinvention of a discipline (meteorology -> "climate science"), being funded, again, by taxpayers...

In short, insane amounts of money to be made, mostly on taxpayers backs, without any real benefit.

>>6792445

No, and they show no global warming.

>>6792717

Affiliating yourself with a political ideology has nothing to do with climate change, or your interpretation of climate data.

Are you trolling or stupid?

>>6792878
>>6792878
>What money is there in denying it?

Fossil fuels. It's kind of a big industry.

>>6792451

NASA GISS loves to rewrite the temperatures.

>not realizing that people make billions off of convincing people that burning fossil fuels has no effect on the earth

>>6792862
>money

There are a lot of jobs, not to mention huge $$$tax money for federal government, and huge amounts of money for the United Nations to "redistribute" from rich countries to 3rd world countries.

>>6792691
oh god. if you think small amounts of melting ice (an inherently harmful thing itself) will cool the ocean down, you must not be familiar with something called thermal capacitance.

protip: the ocean has uber-motherfuckloads of it

>>6792882
>dat spacing on the second y-axis
this is why you only put single values to one axis

>>6792619
So let's see about this Muller guy, here's a nice quote of his from 2003:

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Oh my, how skeptical! How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Yup, very skeptical indeed; you've converted me!

Climate Change is the biggest pile of baloney in history.

>>6792912
It's a conspiracy image from a blog like the rest of them.
Meanwhile at NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

>>6792928

What a pathetic resort to ad hominem. The actual data sources are right on the y-axis'. Pity, that all you have is references to authority, popularity and as you so demonstrated, the inevitable ad hominem.

I guess when you have an unfalsifiable belief system, things must be tough.

>>6792933
Here is an accurate image of the current situation

Don't resort to ad hominem and appeals to authority :^)


Not to mention I did link the NASA sight exposing your bullshit.

>>6792933

Better image.

>>6792871
>you think anybody would buy the tons of 'eco-friendly' products with 'low carbon footprint' if they turned out to be completely pointless

That's a cynical marketing strategy. Would it be feasible for companies to invest resources and money into fabricating an entire field of science just for some roundabout way of increasing sales?

>>6792935

Did you draw that with a crayon? Here's an actual scientific graph with the peer-reviewed reference.

>Not to mention I did link the NASA sight exposing your bullshit.
Argumentum ad misericordiam
>>6792938

>>6792941
>Did you draw that with a crayon?
What a pathetic resort to ad hominem. Pity, that all you have is references to blogs and as you so demonstrated, the inevitable ad hominem.

The NASA link is sourced and is actually relevant. Argument against it instead.

>>6792944

>>muh ad hominem

gtfo wimp

>>6792944

I can't argue, so I hide behind NASA!

State the arguments and provide the data. That's your job, not mine. If Climate Change is a real "science" you should have no problem with these questions:

1) Provide a plausible falsifiability criterion for CAGW. It must distinguish from natural climate variance.

2) Show a single substantive prediction based on anthropogenic CO2 which has proven true for AGW.

Substantive = clearly different from normal climate variance; for comparison against real world data.
Predictive = published before the real world data occurred. Not after-the-fact (CAGW does amazing after-the-fact "predictions!")

>nb4 CO2 doesn't act like a greenhouse gas is my falsifiability criterion.
No one is saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. But it is a WEAK one.

>>6792944
>What a pathetic resort to ad hominem.
>What a pathetic resort to ad hominem.
>What a pathetic resort to ad hominem.
>What a pathetic resort to ad hominem.

>>6792947

>1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html

>2
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf

>it is a WEAK one
>using relative terms without comparison

>>6792434
You know what has a high correlation coefficient? Climate deniers and libertarians. Their political ideology is incapable of addressing planetary scoped problems like global warming. So it's easier to deny it exists then to provide a solution to the problem.

It would be much better if they could put forth ideas. Hardcore statists cream their pants over ideas like this. It gives them every excuse to tell people what to do. The idea of politics though is that the opposition is supposed to keep this in check. They provide alternative solutions so one party doesn't run amok. If all we get is denial from the opposing side then the statists look like the only people with the ideas. Is that what you guys really want?

>>6792956
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>6792871

>This is a list of the world's largest public and private businesses by its consolidated revenue. The list is limited to companies with annual revenues exceeding 100 billion USD. The most common industry is oil and gas (21), with over one third being classified as such. It is followed by automotive (9), conglomerate (7), and retail (5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

>>6792935
Nice source-less graph. It's like I made it myself.

Meh, I think the science is incomplete. I think the models are incomplete. I think the warming is overestimated.

I think that debating AGW/climatechange is pointless because as a species we need to start implementing the switch to nuclear/renewables. If not for supposed 'warming', then at least due to the fact that our current paradigm is kept in place with finite resources.

Resources that need to be used on polymers, lubricants, transportation, rubber, asphalt, etc.

>>6793029
Have you worked on the science, the models, or the estimates of warming? No? Then your opinion means jack shit.

>>6793041
Can you elaborate because I believe the whole Global Warming/ climate change theory, but im starting to question. Thanks.

>>6793041
> implying you need to be a climate scientist to understand climate science

cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

We should really be working on phasing out coal with nuclear and introducing solar, hydro, wind, etc. in such a way that it won't send a nation spiraling into energy poverty.

>>6792953
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html

Didn't answer the question because you can't answer the questions.

What plausible falsifiability criterion did you provide? NONE!

What substantive and correct prediction for AGW did you provide? NONE!

Answer these Questions!!!
>>6792947

You won't because you can't. Demonstrating Climate Changes predictive failures and unfalsifiability.

Hey retards.

If you didn't answer to the idiots this board could maybe be less shitty.

Could you? Please?

Dont answer to this shit.

Fucking children yelling at children.

>>6792518
>designed to enrich the few
>climatologists
>enrich
You're getting your news from Krusty the Klown, right?
"Everywhere I go, I see teachers driving Ferraris,
research scientists drinking champagne!"
– Krusty the Klown, "The Simpsons" (Feb. 1996)

>>6793081
responding to shitposting is worse than shitposting

>>6793061
>What substantive and correct prediction for AGW did you provide? NONE!
Interesting how you ignored this :
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf
You are a goal post shifting nigger faggot , i bet you didn't even bother to paste the link into google .Maybe if you actually read it , you might have an actual argument to the contrary, instead of not addressing it at all. But then again you probably are more intellectually dishonest than creationists , are the shittiest instance of human intelligence , lower than any ebola ridden nigger in west africa. You have to ignore anything that conflicts with your presupposed assertions because you've attached your identity to them and have an emotional ties ,which explains why you're so buttmad with all the caps for emphasis as if this were any other politcal debate.

tl;dr go be disingenuous somewhere else

>>6793090
do you feel smart now? good job, no one cares, let this shit die

>>6793090
>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf

Yeah, I did look at it. Not a single substantive prediction. Lots of vague descriptions. "Temperatures will go up" ain't a substantive prediction as temperatures have been going up for 400 years! And certainly no falsifiability criterion.

You can't answer the questions
>>6792947
so you pretend you did.
If your references actually answer the questions then summarize the answers!

You've really got to stop your juvenile hiding behind authority and pretending to answer something by linking to non-answers.

WRITE THE ANSWER!
You won't, because you can't.

>>6793061

>What substantive and correct prediction for AGW did you provide?

Remember when Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts used to mock James Hansen over the West Side Highway?

Oh how little we knew then.

>I know it sounds crazy but I know more about climate than those so-called "scientists"

>>6793090

Paper describes effects of CO2 which no ones denies. Does mention one CAGW guy who thinks climate sensitivity is high. Mentions another guy who thinks climate sensitivity is low.

So the paper is all over the place. Essentially a description, not a prediction.

>>6792434
ah fuck, can I trust /sci/ on this one or has someone made a reputable review article on this issue so I don't have to research myself?

>>6793082
>responding to denialists is worse than denialists
Krusty Logic

>>6793101

Explain with specificity, the proof that a flood of a single highway was caused by Anthropogenic CO2.

By the way the actual 1988 prediction by Hansen failed. See attached. Scenario A was predicted for a significant increase in CO2; which has actually happened. Scenario C was the scenario based on a massive cutback in CO2. Which didn't happen. Yet that's where the temperatures are.

I credit Hansen for at least having the balls to make a real prediction. But it failed. Now most every Climate "Scientist" hides behind vagueries.

>nb4 SkS shows that if I cut the temp data off early things look OK for Hansen.
Yeah, if you drop inconvenient data, you can make anything look good.

>>6793098
>vague descriptions
>an atmosphere at a higher temperature can hold more water vapor , and the additional water vapour produces a similar blanketing effect to that produced by CO2. Manave and Wetherald calculate that the content of C02 would increase the world temperature by 1.3C , if the water content of the atmosphere remained constant , but by 2.4C if the water vapour increase to maintain the same relative humidity.

>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13230.html

>hiding behind authority
how far did you reach up your ass to pull out that nugget of bullshit , what authority did i invoke in my post.

>>6793126
>By the way the actual 1988 prediction by Hansen failed.
if we judged every field by whether they lived up to the predictions they made twenty years ago, science wouldn't exist

>>6793135

You just cherry-picked the high sensitivity guy; and ignored the low sensitivity guy:

"Rasool and Schneider give a more recent and substantially smaller estimate..."

Like I said, they mentioned a low sensitivity guy and a high-sensitivity guy. But it all comes down to the water-vapor feedback. So lets pretend that the reference you made was an actual prediction. Then water vapor should have a strong increase with CO2 increase. That is the prediction you claim from this paper.

It doesn't, see attached. So your prediction failed.

Now will you admit the Climate Change has been falsified? Of course not, because it is unfalsifiable.

>>6793138

> Science evolves so Climate Change is true!!
How wonderfully unfalsifiable. Sorry, a real science would be falsifiable.

>>6792434
As somebody studying meteorology and is thus educated on this matter, no meteorological entity would take measurements like this. Absolutely none. In fact, great lengths are taken to ensure that meteorological measurements are as accurate a representation as they can be. I can guarantee you that the actual gear is in a an empty field with little obstructions and human created objects that may alter the measurements.

Educate yourself next time.

>>6793151
>water vapor dosen't increase with CO2 increase
>wat

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_1.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1

>>6793135

And how convenient of you to not mention the fundamental "signature" of increased water vapor, the "hot spot." Oh yeah, that prediction failed, so we shouldn't mention it, huh?

It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

See attached with the prediction and the actual data. Both have their references.

>nb4 hurr durr, noisy data!
Radiosondes have 0.1 degree resolution.

>>6793155
>if i say its unfalsifiable enoigh htat will make it true
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
>However, even in the most extreme cases, we are still able to reject the natural variability hypothesis with confidence levels >99%

>>6793162

Gosh I'll just ignore the data he posted.

Post the DATA and it better not be "corrected" from what I showed. (yes, I know someone did a "correction" to protect the unfalsifiable "science.")

Sweet data correcting. Just like the temperature data correcting.
>>6792891

But you can't data correct away from the missing hot spot. Oh wait "hurr, durr noise!" Forgot about that one.
>>6793166
The theory has failed.

Provide the falsifiability criterion. And start showing substantive data instead of hiding behind references.

Ebola fuckin' real

Climate change threads should be on the ban list, it's all the same shit, often literally, there's a large amount of pasta. Then there's the recurring characters that you can identify from their syntax.

>>6793126

>I credit Hansen for at least having the balls to make a real prediction. But it failed. Now most every Climate "Scientist" hides behind vagueries.

>tries to counter a successful real-world observation with a selectively edited graph from a climate kook.

Hey King Canute. You should offer your services to the city of Miami.

>>6793169

What crap. LIes, damned lies and statistics. Yup, 19 years of no global warming proves that climate change is true!

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

Yeah, the paper shows that statistically, there's been no warming for 19 years. Noticed how I summed up the paper instead of just blindly referencing it?

Provide a falsifiability criterion as delineated here:
>>6792947
You won't because you can't. And you haven't provided a single successful prediction as described above. Just hiding behind references.

>>6793162
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1

That's a funny one!

"The climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models are compared using a coordinated set of twenty-first-century climate change experiments. Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models "

Yup, our MODELS proved that climate change is really happening! Love the way you guys think that reality sits inside a computer program. No wonder AGW is unfalsifiable.

>>6793187

Selectively edited? Go look at Hansen (1988).

>>6793191
>it's just a model
>theories aren't models of reality
>somehow physics stops working if a machine is doing the calulations

>>6793202
The point is the models are doing a poor job of actually agreeing with real world data.

>>6792434
Nigga, it would have taken seconds to check that bullshit, but then I suppose the tru fax would have quickly deflated that addictive feeling of righteous fury and self-superiority.

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/announcements/vic/melb-olympic-park2013.shtml