/sci/ - Science & Math

Science was credible when it was a pasttime of richfags who did it for fun with low stakes.

Careercancer ruins everything.

Piltdown man is the only really big hoax I know of from the olden days. Maybe there were some others but probably not as much "bad research" as there is now or even just shoddy care for historical works. I mean some retards broke the funerary mask of King Tutankhamun and tried to do a hack job of gluing it back together. Even Carter wasn't that reckless with priceless works of art, although he did screw up the mummy itself.

Could've been a cool thread ;_;

I'm Dr. Frankensteining this shit. The issue is the vast number of people publishing and research, and fighting for cents to continue their research. The reason we don't know about a lot of past fraud is cause it was heralded as belief and we view it as just lack of understanding due to limitations at the time.

>>7130234
>The issue is the vast number of people publishing and research, and fighting for cents to continue their research.
But shouldn't there be a vast number of people peer reviewing their stuff and thus sorting out any problems?

>>7129032
>climate
Is this corruption?

>>7130551
Might be adjustment for later data only subsequently added. Of course it could be an evil conspiracy too.

>>7129032
Social justice warriors who are hell-bent on making CERTAIN their ideology is the ONLY ideology you're allowed to have, is one science is collapsing.

>>7130572
Interesting how the adjustments for later data always cools the past so that the rate of warming looks stronger.

>>7129032
As long as you allow huge corporations to have so much power it's going to happen.
Politically driven research is easy to notice.
Bill Gate's thinktank pushing thorium reactors or lobbyist bullshit showing X medicine totally works are much harder to stop.
For them most part it just makes it harder to get reliable data, but if it's done under the table it's actually serious.

Imagine a company trying to stop research in a particular technology paying researchers to publish bullshit that makes it look stupid to even look into it.
Actually it's kind of scary.
How can research be real if data aren't real?

>>7130597
>How can research be real if data aren't real?
If someone independent can't get the same data then the research is discarded.

>>7130604
How can you know if he's independent?

>>7130611
So you're saying they're really going to buy like 4 different scientists doing the same experiments to prove the same thing? Well I guess it's possible. If they want it enough you can't stop them.

>>7130596
Actually... in that set of images (which one should not really try to evaluate without knowing exactly what they are plotting), after applying adjustments, the peak anomaly also decreases. The adjustments cool everything about equally. So those graphs prove... well, nothing, except maybe that the adjustments being applied are consistent across time. In other words, they don't prove what you think they prove.

And why the fuck would you concentrate on the maxima and minima rather than some bulk statistical quantity? Awful analysis all around.

>>7129032
I really feel that ideology is corrupting science now more then ever.

People are coming into, training and working in science with a really poisonous mindset. Science has become a cult used as a misguided tool of antidisestablishmentarianism and the like.

Ultimately people are seeking individual gratification, they want to appear the most compassionate and progressive.

Everyone wants to save the world from an undefined enemy.

>>7130597
>How can research be real if data aren't real?

I want Jaden Smith to leave

>>7130551
Also what they don't show you is the margin of error in those recordings. The relative uncertainty is ridiculously large.

>>7130643

The Focus on the maxima minima is to show that the significant warming period of the 1940s is being erased.

>>7130904
1930s period...

Pic related, from Hansen (1981)

>>7130909

Now look where 1935 is compared to 1980 in their 2014 graph. The warming "bump" has been erased.

>>7129032
>Is this a last-couple-decades phenomenon?

Yes. Do you want to prove the acceleration of gravity? Ok, get an apple, drop it from a known height and time it, then plug it in to the equation. Do you want to prove that cells exist? Ok, get some strangely shaped glass and look at a dyed onion underneath those pieces.

Do you want to prove that rabbit blood has antibodies in it that can cure AIDs? Ok, go and get your vivisection licence, pay obscene amounts of money for an independent ethical review, hire and sterilise a fully equipped bio lab, isolate HIV infected cells, and don't forget all of the secondary chemicals you'll need to buy and have a licence to buy.

The problem with science is that as it increases in complexity and depth, so does cost, putting it outside the reach of basically everyone who wants to do some good old fashioned peer review unless they can get massive amounts of funding just to check someone else's work. Who would fund a peer review when it would be impossible to make money from it? When the principle of peer review dies, so too does science.

The appalling lack of sanctions from any professional or legal body for anyone found to be manipulating, fabricating or ignoring results just exacerbates this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/19/fake-aids-research/10899589/
>In December, James Bradac, who helps oversee AIDS vaccine research grants for the National Institutes of Health, said this was the worst case of research fraud he'd seen in his 24 years at the federal agency.
>At the time, Han agreed to be banned from federally financed research for three years.
>agreed to be banned
>federal
>no jail time
>no private sector ban
>wasn't stripped of his credentials

It wouldn't surprise me if he was working for a tobacco group now debunking the link between smoking and cancer.

While I'm in frothy mouth mode, paywall journals should be illegal in every country.

>>7129032
No. Where is the evidence for these claims of increasing fraud and manipulation? There's none, it's just sensationalism.

>>7130945

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.list/tagNo/2642/tags/scientific-fraud/

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/

I know you're going to say >increasing, so I'd like to preempt you by asking where I'm supposed to find searchable databases of science related news from pre 1980. All I can tell you is that the rate is far, far too high, it's irrelevant whether or not the rate is increasing or has increased, it should be 0.

I will say that the older the discovery, the easier it is to test, which probably prevented many people from thinking they could get away with fraud decades or centuries ago, and if anyone tried they would not have had a career like people do now.

>>7130918
You are both comparing apples to oranges, and cherry-picking. As delicious as it all sounds, I suggest you try using your melon and gain a proper understanding of the graphs you are posting instead of simply posting more and more.

>>7130966

Mirth was experienced.

>>7130966
>You are both comparing apples to oranges, and cherry-picking.
>I have no explanation for why the warming bump of the 1930s-1940s disappeared, so I'll try mis-direction and muh "cherry picking."

State Specifically What Was Cherry Picked and Why It Is Cherry Picking.

State exactly why older global temps showing the 1930s-1940s as being warmer that the 1980s and newer graphs showing them as NOT being warmer than the 1980s is Pure Unadulterated Science.

Did they find new data? Where was it hiding? In a bread box? Was the Arctic melting in the 1940s (Pic related) just something people made up to confuse us? You've got nothing to stand except fruity verbiage.

>>7131020
More arctic warming in the 1940s.

>>7130932
So basically science has a terrible flaw once it reaches a certain level of complexity.

>>7131500
Not the same guy, but I don't think high-budged research was ever transparent, but now it might get a manipulative character because it's easily done and profitable.
And it's not about science itself, it's about how researchers share information.

>>7131020
>>7131027
>newspaper articles
>science
Why the fuck would you not cite the actual papers?
Oh right, they don't exist.

>>7131517
Scientific papers from the '30s are not typically available for free on the internet.

>>7131518
Not available for free =/= not existing
Serioulsy, using newspaper articles to support some conclusion about the state of science is so mindboggeling stupid.
>Sure, scientists say bigfoot doesnt exist, but that mumbling hobo clearly states he saw it, therefore, there's a vast conspiracy in science to cover up bigfoot.

>>7131519
You want someone to pay to gain access to these articles and then outside of law copy them to post on this image board to support a global warming argument? Also, a Swedish geophysicist hardly qualifies as a hobo.

>>7131523
>You want someone to pay to gain access to these article
I have university access to quite some journals.
Just show me which of them you think support the conclusion in
>>7131020
>>7131027
and i'll post them here. Good luck

>>7131531
Well you'll have to ask >>7131020
>>7131027
since I'm not him. Maybe he shall return. Unless he's just arguing based off newspaper clippings.

>Implying there is grant money to redo published result
>implying peer review doesn't go to people who love or hate the other researcher

>>7131558
>>Implying there is grant money to redo published result
How does any peer review get done then?

>>implying peer review doesn't go to people who love or hate the other researcher

I'd prefer it go to people who hate him so they would try to disprove his claims and thus would only regrettably have to accept his experiment/research was indeed accurate.

>>7131517
The first article cites Dr. Hans Ahimann, a Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute. The second article cites the Russian meteorologist, N.N. Zubov.

What of course, you're really doing, is desperately hiding behind authority to pretend that Arctic Melting was just a fantasy made up by someone. Because you don't won't to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that the temperature has been changed in a way that is incongruent with the past.

Here is the submarine Skate, surfaced at the North Pole. IN 1962.

Does this picture have to be certified by Pal Review?

>>7131637
Another submarine surfaced at the North Pole. 1958.

>>7131531
Search for articles from the 1930s-1950s on changes to Arctic Ice thickness and coverage.

>>7131517
See:
"'Arctic Warming' During 1920-40:
A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications"
Sergey V. Pisarev,
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology
Russian Academy of Science
Moscow, Russia

The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts:
* retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost
* decrease of sea ice amounts
* acceleration of ice drift
* change of cyclone paths
* increase of air temperature
* biological indications of Arctic warming
* ease of navigation
* increase in temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters, entering Arctic Basin.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm

>>7131637
>>7131640

Steve Goddard is a fucking moron.

http://reallysciency.blogspot.ca/2012/01/zombie-lies.html

>>7130965
This is the definition of sensationalism.

>>7131637
>>7131640
>>7131714
Fuckin rekt m8

>>7131558
>implying there isn't
nobody just redoes research for the hell of it, that's pointless

they redo research because they can use it to ask a question the original authors didn't care about, but the new researchers do.

it happens every single day, and is published every single day

shut the fuck up if you dont know what you're talking about

>>7131732
>b-b-but muh graphs I saved from /pol/

>>7131714
The only moron is a person who thinks that ad hominem can replace historical facts.

Are you saying that those submarines didn't surface at the North Pole?
Are you saying there isn't evidence for Arctic melting in the 1930s-1940s? >>7131668
Are you saying that the temperature record hasn't changed, erasing a heating period of the 1940s?
>>7130909
>>7130918
Using ad hominem to ignore facts is not a scientific perspective. It is a religious perspective.

>>7131732
that's not redoing the experiment.
That's performing a new experiment based on what's supposedly been done

>>7131512
>I don't think high-budged research was ever transparent
But it is in other fields. Astronomy for example data is open access after a proprietary phase, anyone can check the conclusions.

>>7131755
It's not based on what has been done, it's an independent test. It's redoing the experiment and learning something new at the same time.

>>7131750
>Are you saying that those submarines didn't surface at the North Pole?
No one ever said that. You're twisting his words. The article itself says that those submarines surfaced at the North Pole, and showed the pictures from the expedition where they found a bunch of ice.

Also, looking at those Russian studies, it looks like they mostly did testing around heavily populated areas, which certainly would have become warmer as engines and heating become more widespread. I'm not convinced. Can you find a non-Russian source to support this claim?

>>7131770
With studies like that, there is the often outright stated assumption that the findings from the initial study are accurate, thus coloring the scientists' perspective.

>>7131776
>With studies like that, there is the often outright stated assumption that the findings from the initial study are accurate
You're doing the same test, if the previous studies weren't accurate that will come out regardless of what you assume.

>>7131783
So you throw out your theory like you're suppose to, because you were given shit data to work off of.
Let me go find some Feynman quotes

>>7131750
>HURR DURR DEY EWASED DUH TWENDS

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/V3vsV2/

Wow, it's almost like comparing different data gives you different results...

>>7131776
>No one ever said that. You're twisting his words.
To be fair, he only asked a series of questions to narrow down where your disbelief lies. You inferred these implications.

>assumption that the findings from the initial study are accurate, thus coloring the scientists' perspective

What job do you hold, or how far along are you in education? I don't believe you understand how research is conducted or what it means when they state an assumption or why they state it.

>>7131786
What? Why would you be using the same data? What theory?

>>7131750
>The only moron is a person who thinks that ad hominem can replace historical facts.

It isn't an ad hominem to call Steve Goddard a fucking moron, because he is, in fact, a fucking moron.

>>7131790
No he asked rhetorical questions to signify his disbelief that anyone could remain unconvinced from the "evidence" he posted.

>>7131786
https://www.google.com/search?q=Goddard%3A+Tampering+With+Data+All+Over+The+Planet&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS436US436&oq=Goddard%3A+Tampering+With+Data+All+Over+The+Planet&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

The biggest problem that I see in the perception of modern science is driven by the media picking up stories and glitzing them up by misrepresenting the results. As an example, see just about every quantum teleportation article ever.

There is some problem with statistical analysis, but this is being magnified by the media to an unusual degree. Given the standards in place in biology for claiming statistical significance, they are actually getting not that ridiculous of a failure rate. More stringent conditions could be applied, but the nature of many biological studies makes the test populations an ethical concern as well as prohibitively costly.

As for the questions over climate change, the uproar is generally driven by ignorance of the methods employed as far as I can tell.

slashdot still exists?

>>7131817
>As an example, see just about every quantum teleportation article ever.
What about the articles or reports that the universe may be a "hologram"?

>>7131823
Whats wrong with it? Do you have a replacement I can use?

>>7131826
>>7131826
lol how's about you finally enter the 21st century and start using reddit.com???

>>7131828
I don't like le downboating system or response threading

>>7131788
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/V3vsV2

A non-answer. Just a bunch of graphs. All global data sets are mostly based on the Global Historical Climate Network. That's been around a long time.

>>7131836
But that means the data can never change.

>>7131836
>Just a bunch of graphs.
Just like what you posted (except for the outright fraudulent submarine pictures).

>All global data sets are mostly based on the Global Historical Climate Network. That's been around a long time.
Yes, and the comparison Goddard was making was between two different versions of GHCN.

>“For GHCN v3, NCDC developed a homogenization that is used to combine different station records for the same location as well as deal with discontinuities created by station moves, changes in instrumentation, the urban heat island effect etc. which eliminates many known and documented discontinuities still present in the unadjusted data and caused us to no longer use their unadjusted data.”

>>7131846
>homogenization that is used to combine different station records
Exactly. And homogenization mixes urban data with rural data. Tainting rural data with the Urban Heat Island (UHI)effect.

Homogenization does NOT subtract off the UHI it ADDs it to rural stations creating a non-greenhouse gas induced warming. Don't worry I'm sure that there were plenty of other "adjustments," that by strange coincidence erase old warming and otherwise always increase the overall rate of warming.

>>7131846
>Just like what you posted (except for the outright fraudulent submarine pictures).

"1959 USS SKATE (SSN 578), CDR James F. Calvert, conducted first through-ice surfacing at the North Pole (Dr. W.K. Lyon)"
A submarine will not attempt this unless the ice is quite thin. Or maybe the US Navy is in on the conspiracy.
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/Timeline.htm

Pic is from the Navy. What a conspiracy!!
http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/ScrapBook/Boats/Skate1958.jpg

>>7131802
"Submarine surfaces through the WINTER ice."
>Arctic ice in the winter proves that there was no arctic warming in the 1930s-1950s.

Whatever. For Winter ice, its rather thin.

>>7131776
>the North Pole, and showed the pictures from the expedition where they found a bunch of ice.

IN THE WINTER. Thin ice for Winter ice.
>>7131802

>>7132848
>the US Navy is in on the conspiracy
Of course! Now it's all SO CLEAR

>>7132829
The entire point of homogenization is to combine data from various sources in order to eliminate biases in any one source. You seem to feel that this homogenization is wrong because you do not like the conclusion that results. That is not how scientific criticism works.

>>7132848
What are you talking about? Your own posts are right there, making outright false claims that you could have avoided if you did some research instead of gullibly swallowing them.

These >>7131637 >>7131640 are not surfaced at the North Pole and the implication that the North Pole did not have ice at that time is false. Keep backtracking thoug, it's hilarious.

>>7132829
If you don't even understand how climatology works, how are you going to critique it properly? http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>>7132901
>The entire point of homogenization is to combine data from various sources in order to eliminate biases in any one source. You seem to feel that this homogenization is wrong because you do not like the conclusion that results. That is not how scientific criticism works.

UHI is wrong because it DOESN'T Subtract The Urban Heat Island Effect. Or do you believe that NOT elimiating the UHI eliminates a bias? Just because the UHI adds a significant warming trend does not change the fact that it is terrible "science."

>The Winter arctic ice proves NO Arctic Warming!
Whatever.

>>7131776
http://www.thearcticcircle.ca/pdf/Arctic%20Circular%20Volume%202%201949.pdf
Arctic Circular, Vol. 2, 1949, Page 3

“During the last three decades there has been a marked change in the climate of the Arctic which is being felt throughout the northern hemisphere where, especially, the mean temperature of the winters has increased considerably. In the North American sector this change is perhaps best understood and also most marked in Greenland, where long meteorological records exist from a number of points on the west coast, Thus at Jakobshavn, in latitude 690 13 North, the mean winter temperature for the years 1913-1922 was about 5 degrees F above the mean of 50 years and that of 1923-1932 almost 10.0 degrees F. above. In 1935-1936 the mean for the winter at Godhavn was 13.40 higher than the normal at the end of last century, that of Godthaab 7.60 and at Julianehaab 9.8oF. Increasing temperatures are not limited to the air; sea temperatures also have increased and while the amplitude is not so great, the result is even more profound and far reaching.”

>>7132987
>UHI is wrong
Make that "Their homogenization is wrong..."

>>7132919
Nonsense. Explain exactly how homogenization subtracts the UHI. IT DOESN'T. It just spreads it to rural data. Then, after spreading the UHI to rural data, surprise! the rural data warms like urban data.

That doesn't change the fact that the UHI taints the data. Its just that now all the data is tainted.

Turned into a pretty interesting discussion of global climate change really. People are using sources and everything. Usually people just spout talking points.

>>7132863
>>7132873

>>7132848

This is just damage control by Anthony Watts after Goddard's claims about there being open sea at the north pole in the 50's got shot down by the evidence.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/

>>7132887

GLOBAL WARMING CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS

>>7133547
>Hurr, durr Breaking through thin ice in the Winter proves that the arctic didn't warm
You're pretty much the captain of damage control.
>>7131802

>>7134487

You keep trying to pretend that the north pole was open water in the 50's in order to imply that the current arctic ice loss is normal. When that was disproved, you shifted to saying that the ice was thin in order to imply that the current arctic ice loss is normal.

CRACK

POT

DAMAGE

CONTROL

>>7132987
>>7133006
>UHI is wrong because it DOESN'T Subtract The Urban Heat Island Effect.

But it does you fucking retard. Did you read this or did you just pretend to? http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>>7132987
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/abstract

Homogenization removes UHI bias and is consistent with rural-only data. Get the fuck out you lying fuck.

>>7134771
No it DOESN'T!!!!

Show me the exact quote where it says that the UHI is SUBTRACTED from urban temperatures. Give Me The Quote. Retard. Its not there.

Notice homogenize =/= subtract UHI effect. Homogenize = spread UHI to rural temps and then (circularly) say "look no difference between rural and urban temps."

Here is a simple example of homogenization. Look at the temps here:
>>7133006
Notice that the center of the city is 86 degrees, outside of the city is 74 degrees. That 12 degree difference has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Its just humans with their asphalt and concrete etc. So what is the correct temperature? 74 degrees! What does homogenization do? Basically it averages things. So the average of 74 degrees and 86 degrees is 80 degrees. So after homogenization the "correct" temperature is 80 degrees. But that is FLAT OUR WRONG. The correct temperature is 74 degrees. The UHI has now tainted all the data, both rural and urban; it has given a fake 6 degrees increase which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/circular-reasoning-in-temperature-adjustments/

>>7134780
You're full of crap. GIve me the exact method about how the UHI is SUBTRACTED from the urban data.
>>7134834

What you fail to understand is that what people say they do and what is actually done is not necessarily the same thing. Here is an example of what is actually done. It ain't pretty.

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/the-puerto-casado-story/

>>7134746
>When that was disproved,

Where? In your fantasy world?
Reality says otherwise.
>>7131020
>>7131027
>>7131668
>>7132848
>>7132994

Notice how they always start modern arctic ice graphs at about 1979. Why is that? Satellite data goes back to 1973. And there's a huge ice loss in 1973. But a huge peak at about 1979. Gosh its almost as if they're cherry picking...

>>7130626
>scientist gets result X
>other scientist gets conflicting result
>the other guy is bought off by government!
>thats a lie! HE is bought off by corporations!
>third scientist gets completely different data
>i'm right, they're both bought off!
>bullshit, he's a conspiracy theorist!

good luck

>>7135217
I feel like this accurately represents what really happens on contentious scientific issues. Am I too cynical?

Keep it coming this is hilarious

>>7134834
>>7134844
IT EXPLAINS HOW THEY ADJUST THE DATA IN THE LINKS I POSTED YOU ILLITERATE FUCK.

They use satellite pictures of the earth at night to characterize areas as rural and urban. They then adjust the urban data so that it matches trends in rural data. I've given you several sources explaining this. I've also given you sources explaining how analysis of this process has found that it does in fact negate the UHI bias. Where is your argument against these sources?

All you're doing is denying what's right in front of your eyes. You have no argument, just an idiotic emotional rant.

>>7135861
>IT EXPLAINS HOW THEY ADJUST THE DATA IN THE LINKS I POSTED YOU ILLITERATE FUCK.
My what naughty words. A sad substitute for cogent argument. I am going to repeat the question which you so conveniently ignored. Can you show me the exact quote where they explain SUBTRACTING off the UHI effect from urban data?

Its not there.

And as long as you're going, can you explain, with specificity, exactly how the warming "bump" of the 1930s-1940s disappeared and yet later temp increases did not disappear?
>>7130551
>>7130596
>>7130909

>>7136752
>where they explain SUBTRACTING off the UHI effect from urban data?

And how they are NOT ADDING the UHI effect to rural data?

>>7136752
>The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm was designed as an automated method of detecting and correcting localized temperature biases due to station moves, instrument changes, microsite changes, and meso-scale changes like urban heat islands.
>The algorithm (whose code can be downloaded here) is conceptually simple: it assumes that [CH] forced by external factors tends to happen regionally rather than locally. If one station is warming rapidly over a period of a decade a few kilometers from a number of stations that are cooling over the same period, the warming station is likely responding to localized effects (instrument changes, station moves, microsite changes, etc.) rather than a real climate signal.
>To detect localized biases, the PHA iteratively goes through all the stations in the network and compares each of them to their surrounding neighbors. It calculates difference series between each station and their neighbors (separately for min and max) and looks for breakpoints that show up in the record of one station but none of the surrounding stations. These breakpoints can take the form of both abrupt step-changes and gradual trend-inhomogenities that move a station’s record further away from its neighbors. The figures below show histograms of all the detected breakpoints (and their magnitudes) for both minimum and maximum temperatures.

>>7136752
>While fairly symmetric in aggregate, there are distinct temporal patterns in the PHA adjustments. The single largest of these are positive adjustments in maximum temperatures to account for transitions from LiG instruments to MMTS and ASOS instruments in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Other notable PHA-detected adjustments are minimum (and more modest maximum) temperature shifts associated with a widespread move of stations from inner city rooftops to newly-constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants after 1940, as well as gradual corrections of urbanizing sites like Reno, Nevada. The net effect of PHA adjustments is shown in Figure 8, below.
>The PHA has a large impact on max temperatures post-1980, corresponding to the period of transition to MMTS and ASOS instruments. Max adjustments are fairly modest pre-1980s, and are presumably responding mostly to the effects of station moves. Minimum temperature adjustments are more mixed, with no real century-scale trend impact. These minimum temperature adjustments do seem to remove much of the urban-correlated warming bias in minimum temperatures, even if only rural stations are used in the homogenization process to avoid any incidental aliasing in of urban warming, as discussed in Hausfather et al. 2013.

You can download the fucking algorithm if you want. You lose.

>>7136769
>And how they are NOT ADDING the UHI effect to rural data?
BECAUSE HOMOGENIZATION TAKES OUTLIERS AND ADJUSTS THEM DOWN RETARD. HOW WOULD IT ADD A BIAS IF IT REMOVES THE BIAS. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM THEN YOUR CRITICISM IS MEANINGLESS.

>>7136752
Disappearing the warming bump in Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs).

>>7136791
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Nothing here describes subtracting the (entire) UHI from urban temps. Nothing in here describes NOT ADDING UHI to rural data.

It does go into the circular reasoning about how after homogenization [tainting rural data with UHI] the rural data looks like urban data. And its purposefully very vague. "Adjusting?" You mean like here:
>>7134844

And look at the attached pic. The "correction" for UHI by the NOAA is a mere 0.1 degrees F (purple line). Yet the UHI is 0.6 degrees F as shown here:
>>7132829
That's a 0.5 degree error. And their homogenization will taint their entire data set with that error.

Once again, read it:
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/circular-reasoning-in-temperature-adjustments/

What I find disturbing is your endless appeal to authoritarian and purposefully vague non-answers. Perhaps you're not good with the scientific method.

>>7136792
More exactly it adjusts old temperatures down and new temperatures up:
>>7134834
Creating a nice pretty warming trend.

Your haven't answered the question, because you can't answer the question. Show the exact quote about subtracting off the UHI from urban data and NOT adding it to rural data.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breathe.

>>7136821
>Nothing here describes subtracting the (entire) UHI from urban temps. Nothing in here describes NOT ADDING UHI to rural data.
So you are literally just going to ignore the evidence because you can't answer it. You're a fucking child.

What exactly do you want? The only way to "subtract the UHI" is to identify which stations have the bias. This is done by comparing each region to the data outside of it. Stations that disagree with the data surrounding it is then adjusted so that it agrees. The GISS has an additional system that looks at satellite nighttime imagery to identify urban areas. Are you claiming this isn't done? If so, the burden of proof is on you to show that it isn't. I've given you plenty of evidence not only explaining this process, I've also given you a page that has the link directly to the algorithm that does it. I've also given you papers that analyse this technique and confirm that it does correct the UHI. You have done nothing but stick your fingers in your ears. WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? The burden of proof is now on you.

>It does go into the circular reasoning about how after homogenization [tainting rural data with UHI] the rural data looks like urban data.
How does homogenization taint rural data with UHI? Explain to me how you think homogenization works.

>The "correction" for UHI by the NOAA is a mere 0.1 degrees F (purple line).
That graph does not say it's the adjustment solely for UHI, you disingenuous shithead. You're either a liar or can't read graphs. Which is it?

>That's a 0.5 degree error. And their homogenization will taint their entire data set with that error.
Subtracting the UHI bias from the total adjustment just gives you the sum of adjustments that don't correct for UHI, not error.

What I find disturbing is someone could make such laughable mistakes. It must take a fair bit of self deception in order to avoid the logical part of your brain so that you can reach preconceived conclusions.

>>7136821
>https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/circular-reasoning-in-temperature-adjustments/
This is pure nonsense. Does the author know what "circular" means? Because he does nothing to demonstrate circular logic. As to the conclusion that adjustments are unnecessary, this completely contradicts your own arguments. I guess the UHI can be ignored since all data should simply be taken as is without adjustments? The reason we adjust data is because MISTAKES can be made. A change in temperature might be due to a change in the method of measuring rather than a change in what's being measured. Things that are not the climate can affect the observed temperature. These can be identified because they are not uniformly present and thus appear as outliers when compared with other observations. Then there are uniform regional biases which can only be corrected by getting as much data as possible. So adjustments are completely necessary if we want to know something about the climate and not simply observed temperatures.

>>7136824
>More exactly it adjusts old temperatures down and new temperatures up:
Once again, arguing against the conclusions rather than the method. Nice job showing everyone that you are following a dogma and have no scientifically valid criticism.

>Show the exact quote about subtracting off the UHI from urban data and NOT adding it to rural data.
I showed you the exact quote explaining it. If you want even more detail, download the algorithm itself. I'll await your critique of it.

>>7137106
>>7137124

You can't answer the question. How many time have you dodged it? Lets see:
>>7135861
>>7136789
>>7136791
>>7137106
>>7137124
Five attempts to dodge the question. But nope, you couldn't find the quote about Subtracting UHI from urban data and NOT adding UHI to rural data. Because it doesn't exist.

Nice attempt at mis-direction and obfuscation.
And nice attempt to give cover to what will go down as one of the greatest scientific frauds in modern history. Unfortunately, you don't have a time machine to go back and rewrite the past. AND HISTORY SAYS YOU'RE WRONG.
>>7130551
>>7130596
>>7130904
>>7130909
>>7130918
>>7131020
>>7131027
>>7131668

Time to read up on some very relevant history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>7137124
>I showed you the exact quote explaining it. If you want even more detail, download the algorithm itself. I'll await your critique of it.

Hogwash. You did a copypasta of large amounts of verbiage for the express purpose of obfuscating the situation. It never said "We subtract UHI from urban data and do NOT add it to rural data." BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

>>7138955
And this piece of observational history
>>7132994
Hmmmmmm... I guess the good publishers of the Arctic Circular were just pre-emptive deniers that were trying to sabotage future Climate Ch@nge 'Scientists.' Than again, what's this?
>>7136807
Why were those Climate Ch@nge 'Scientists' talking about erasing the Sea Surface Temperatures 'bump' of the 1940s? I know! This is just a bit of "fake evidence" planted to test the faith of the Warmists. You know, like dinosaur bones are there to test the faith of Creationists. Yeah, this is the temptation you have to deal with when you have faith in an unfalsifiable dogma.

Reverend Gore said it best, "We need to put a price on Climate Ch@nge denial."

Yup, blasphemers need to be punished.