/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7412756
8/10 fucked. no one will do anything about it tho.

1/10 because its likely an overestimate like most climate predictions

>>7412899
>1/10 because its likely an overestimate like most climate predictions
nigga pls. Hanson has been spot-on for years.

>>7412756
We'll find out later.

>>7412756
Mini-ace age is coming in 15 years, I'm guessing they didn't figure that into their computer

>>7412958
>I'm guessing
... and guessing wrong.

Less politics, more science please.

>>7412958
>Reads mini ice age, thinks it's anywhere comparable to an actual ice age

>>7412958
Actually, it's only a "mini-ice age" in the sense that sunspot activity will be like what has occurred during previous mini-ice ages. This does not mean the climate will be anything like a mini-ice age though. It will actually not change at all thanks to GW.

>>7413033
shooped.

>>7413129
You think so?

humanity wont survive the next 500 years for many other reasons. why care?

>buy land that's 15 feet above sea level
>sit on it for forty years
>free beachfront property!

>>7412756
Climate change is a hoax. Sea levels are not rising. It is an agenda pushed by the left to keep democrats in power and to get money to the companies that lobbied them.

>>7413378
>>7413340
I'll post this here too

I'm waiting for a solution

>>7413405
>Mass extinction is preferable to a lower standard of living.

This better be bait.

>>7413408
>give me one fucking solution to global worming

I'll wait

>>7413415
There ya go... (I claim my £5).

>>7413415
>Thinking global warming is solved by one solution.
>Not a multitude of new technology as well as diplomatic action and a forced cultural shift.

It's a difficult problem but I think you're oversimplifying the solution space.

>>7413420
>>Not a multitude of new technology as well as diplomatic action and a forced cultural shift.
>of which you have failed to go into detail

lets simplify then

where the fuck are you going to get the fucking energy from then dickwad?

>>7413394
I like how you think anon. But you have to buy land that's 15 feet above current beachfront property since they're probably not in the water.

>>7413427
That big ass fusion reactor in the sky? Probably with a mix of nuclear power as well.

>>7413433
and can we fucking do that by the end of the month?

no

so why the fuck should we tax gas up to $6.00/gallon faggot?
Why the fuck should we hobble our economy when we don't HAVE A FUCKING SOLUTION NOW

>>7413435
How else do you stop people from being wasteful with gasoline?

>>7413444
define waste?

>>7413444
>I'm going to make the poor, who spend a disproportionate amount of they very limited resources on transportation, pay 3X what they should for gas because I think people are wasting gas
why do you hate the poor?
why do you want them to pay more?
don't you care what they have to struggle with you middle class shitlord?

this leads to higher food prices
this leads to higher school supplies prices
this leads to higher FUCKING EVERYTHING prices BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FUCKING TRANSPORT SHIT SOMEHOW AND WE DON'T USE HORSE AND CARRIAGE ANYMORE

WE USE TRUCKS

TRUCKS RUN ON SHIT PUMPED OUT OF THE GROUND

SHIT HAS TO BE FLOWN IN ON A AIRPLANE
GUESS WHERE WE GET THE JET FUEL FAGGOT

but no

you want prices to go up

I don't understand why climate change is considered such a big existential issue with a fuckton of political discussion, but nuclear disarmament isn't.

It only takes a team of nutters to steal some old Soviet devices, or even a glitch or misunderstanding between the US and Russia to initiate an apocalyptic, ecosystem shattering event.

Global warming seems pretty tame in comparison.

>>7413455
>why do you hate the poor?

I hate the poor huh? That's odd since I actually think American is one of the worst fucking countries due to its massive wealth disparity.

Yes the price going up will realistically most negatively affect the poor since they're the ones most likely to be only using the amount of fuel they absolutely need. However it's hard to think of an alternative. Really the rich should be footing the bill, they're the ones who are actually causing the damage through their companies and lifestyle.

But suggest taxing the rich? People just call you a socialist and "but muh American dream".

Honestly if you fixed your wealth disparity problem it wouldn't even matter if fuel prices went up.

>>7413466
tell me where I said i was American

so your only solution to global warming is the creation science of economics?

>>7413465
I don't know man. I'm pretty sure anyone who is able to authorize a nuke launch knows that doing so is M.A.D. People aren't particularly interested in deliberately turning earth into a barren wasteland.

However turning the earth into a barren wasteland through willful ignorance in an effort to maintain your standing of living for a few more years. That is something people are evidently prepared to do.

>>7413467
>Thinking I'm a socialist.

This is my point exactly. I'm neither capitalist nor socialist nor communist before you assume that as well.

>>7413472
>bitch about wealth disparity
>bitch about taxing the rich to save the planet
>bitch taxing the rich to save the planet because they're big evil meanies

do you have a fucking solution to global warming or not?
>tfw I will forever wait for the left to propose a practical solution

>I'm neither capitalist nor socialist nor communist before you assume that as well.
a distributist?

>>7413415
>>7413435
>give me one fucking solution to global worming
>and can we fucking do that by the end of the month?

>IF YOU CAN'T SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING RIGHT NOW IN ONE STEP WITH NO DRAWBACKS, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO SOLUTION

Holy shit you're autistic

>>7413480
I didn't say there wouldn't be drawbacks

what is your plan to face this problem confronting mankind

>>7413482
solution 1:
shoah 90% of people, strict 2.1 child policy.

Yes we are

F
C
K
D

how about we stop using oil, the $ you save by not needing to have a war every 5 minutes should help

inb4 'muh infrastructure' - shut up, it takes less than a weekend to install a petrol filling station, a battery swap station is even faster because no digging

as for alternatives, there are so many, but most involve the sun (even wave power) because why the fuck not, it's hitting us with way more energy than we actually use

>>7413482
>4chan ought to have a plan
>which'll fit in a comment

Of course I personally don't have a solution, but look at every single solution to every problem we've had thus far in general: there was a point in time where we didn't have it.

The fact is while a lot of hippie go-green shit isn't single-handedly going to turn the tide, it makes things less bad and therefore easier to solve eventually. If I've scribbled too much pencil lead onto my paper and haven't found an eraser yet, is the best option to keep writing? Of course not, retard.

Really, who gives a shit if the standard cost of living goes up as a result of, you know, "being not dead"? How are you that shortsighted?

>>7412909
> Hanson has been spot-on for years.
> Hanson
https://youtu.be/NHozn0YXAeE

>>7413492
Technology will improve
mankind will progress
we will be fine

the house is burning down and you want to go through the inconvenience of throwing a thimble of water on the fire

wait for the fucking fire engine
it's coming, you don't have to be scared

>>7413129
You idiot, photoshop didn't even exist when that image was new.

>>7413415
Geoengineering. It ain't even that expensive.

>>7413490
>as for alternatives, there are so many, but most involve the sun (even wave power) because why the fuck not, it's hitting us with way more energy than we actually use
>us
Nnnnn. It's hitting the surface of the planet with a lot of energy. Covering large swathes of land with PV cells isn't exactly cheap though, and that is ignoring the oceans.
Not to mention that would compete with plants and algae/plankton. Do you want the planet to die?

How fucked are you depends on the country

America is fine although losing some of our coastal cities will be annoying

If you live in some island country though RIP

>Humanity is L I T E R A L L Y going to be ass fucked within the century
>Self centered cunts still have children as a means to their own happiness despite the cruelty of bringing a child into the world at this time

>>7413496
>mankind will progress
>by doing nothing
>someone else can fix it

>>7413534
>implying children aren't just a combination of their parents with new memories
Ey if they want to do it to themselves who cares man?

>>7413538
>we are doing nothing

>>7413482
> what is your plan to face this problem confronting mankind
Um, move inland?

Just because there is a coast doesn't mean we have to live on it.

>>7413496
It would be more truthful to your analogy if the building on fire was the fire department, and plumbing stopped working due to lack of maintenance.

Same "bombshell" he dropped a couple of years ago? What an impact. Can we expect the bombshell again two years from now?

Maybe he should just add a zero to the end of his estimate every couple of years. Five metes, 50 meters, 500 meters... the threat can't be exaggerated.

>>7413432
oh, true. good thinking anon.

>>7413605
we don't have a lack of maintenance
how the fuck do we not have maintenance

all the shit we spend on R&D and we "don't have maintenance"

>>7413559
Tell that to ausfags, inland is shit.

>>7413522
even if we just used wave power (which obvs is created by the sun) we would only require 0.2% of the available power to meet current global consumption

i don't think that's going to hurt the planet as badly as we are by burning oil and fighting all the time

>>7413610
Gotta be thorough, property investing is no joke.

>>7413629
Ausfag here.. A fair bit of our coast could do with being underwater. Sydney and Melbourne for example....

>East coast destroyed

good

Maybe if we're lucky Los Angeles can get wiped out too

The price of energy from solar panel is dropping exponentially.

This means that if current trends keep up for just a few more decades, the price is be low enough that we will be able to synthesize any hydrocarbon fuels using carbon from the atmosphere. Thus we will be able to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and replace current fossile fuels.

i own a sailboat and pretty mch live on it and when im not on it im in the land wilderness. im all for the earth warming up, because its trying to kill off its disease... the human species. if they die, they die.

>>7413559
the problem is bigger than "we can't live on the coast"

all major international shipping is handled by ocean transport through major port cities, which have had massive infrastructure investments to be able to handle large container ships in the harbor, offload them all efficiently, and service them

if those ports are threatened we're looking at major economic problems for everyone on the continent, and possibly shortages in some foods as well as foreign chemicals and petroleum products

>>7412756
1, climatology is a meme science done by people who can't hack it in a real field of study.

>>7413659
>Subsidies for solar panels increasing exponentially
Fantastic!

>>7413455
>why do you hate the poor?
>why do you want them to pay more?
>don't you care what they have to struggle with you middle class shitlord?

They should just get jobs as global warming deniers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.Va--d0YYF8E

>>7413748
>at any point ITT I said climate change was not real or not man made

strawman harder fucking faggot

go choke on a bag of dicks

>>7413761

The whole point of global warming denialism is to protect corporate profits. Claiming that these people care about how regulations might hurt the poor is a joke.

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

This is an interesting chart... what happens when all those millions of muslims in bangladesh get squeezed? War?

>>7413794
you get indian coal

>>7413465
>I don't understand why climate change is considered such a big existential issue with a fuckton of political discussion, but nuclear disarmament isn't.
How many world leaders which have access to THE BUTTON do you think would press it? There's none.

Yet everyone's pressing on the global warming button and no one wants to stop pressing on it.

it's probably already too late to stop global warming at this point.

>>7413775
ok

where did i say any of that?

>>7413809
>>I don't understand why climate change is considered such a big existential issue with a fuckton of political discussion, but nuclear disarmament isn't.

umm, because 70 years of diplomacy worldwide, ummm, because nuclear stuff is a narrowly defined problem with known ramifications, ummmm.... because people are working on disarmament... ummm, hello, Iran nuclear deal, oversight by AEC, UN, etc.?

>everyone pressing the global warming button
>too late to stop it

Not true. +2.4deg warming if we can actually stall CO2 production / biomass destruction.
+8-10deg by 2100 with business as usual.

>>7413794
Probably massive civil unrest in the area and mass migration into India
The same stuff that happens pretty much every time there is a big flood in there.

>>7413825
Ocean warming can no longer be stopped by human action.

>>7412756
HOW MUCH MONEY CAN WE GIVE THEM TO FEEL SAFE AGAIN?????

>>7413666
> we're looking at major economic problems for everyone on the continent
No, you're looking at major economic problems for the OWNERS of the docks.

Guess who that is.

For the rest of us, global warming means millions of new construction jobs. Hell, I fart into the atmosphere daily, trying to bring my brothers work.

> shortages in some foods
Amerifats rejoice.

>>7412756
Correct headline would be: "Asshole Zealot Tries To Influence Policy Talks By Presenting Half-Assed 'Research' As 'Too Important For Peer Review'"

>>7413917
>MONEY CAN WE GIVE THEM
What do you mean by "we", Captain Capslock?

>>7413941
>global warming means millions of new construction jobs
built using materials shipped in from overseas... oh wait

>>7413941
Reminder vandals breaking windows are just creating jobs for windowmakes
What model citizens

>>7412909
>ignoring your cute spelling error

>spot on for years

>said the West Side Highway in NY would be underwater already
>it isn't

>global average temps are under his 'commitment' scenario where CO2 emissions stopped dead in 2000
>emissions have only accelerated since then

>>7413420
>>7413427
Foolish posters if /sci/ scientist's have already come out and said that we have long gone past the tipping of climate change. There is no stopping the climate rape train, there is only living with it.

>>7414012
>said the West Side Highway in NY would be underwater already
Actually he said the West Side Highway would be underwater if CO2 doubled. CO2 has not doubled. A prediction is a guess on what is going to happen in the future. A projection is a guess on what is going to happen in the future given certain conditions. Climatologists generally do not make predictions, they make projections based on various scenarios involving natural climate variation and CO2 levels. It is silly to demand that climatologists have to guess what CO2 levels will be in 40 years when their job is to figure out the consequences of CO2 on the climate, not predict the economy and regulations on CO2.

Why does there need to be some huge impetus to improve the entire world?

>>7414143
Because there's a huge impetus that is harming the entire world?

>>7414012
>said the West Side Highway in NY would be underwater already

Well, yes.

>>7413631
t. bogan

>>7414143
>Why does there need to be some huge impetus to improve the entire world?
it's not about improving but about preventing disaster which will impact pretty much everyone in the world to some degree.

ABC did a special few years back called "Earth 2100" and it was pretty fucking scary. You can watch here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI31a2L1Olw&list=PL857C91B5385D1375

Global warming is fucking scary.

>>7413825
those are increases in the mean global temperature, i dont think anyone here understands the ramifications

>>7412756
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again-global-temperature-update-the-pause-is-now-18-years-3-months/

explain the 20 year "hiatus" in global warming

>leftists on the coasts getting killed
I really don't see the problem, it will be nice to have a beach in Dallas.

>>7413941
>For the rest of us, global warming means millions of new construction jobs.
I know you're joking, but even then it's retarded.

You get that deliberately breaking things and then paying people to fix them isn't a positive for the economy right? That the people hire profit locally while the society suffers globally?

>>7412756
Pfffft, 50 years. I'm old, I'll be dead by then, so who fucking cares?

>>7413995
the seas will be closer you dummy

>>7414930
The economy's a complicated thing where counterintuitive effects are possible. Disruption and damage can benefit the working class, who depend on employment for their sustenance, at the expense of the wealthy, who are otherwise free to decide what to do with their capital.

There is such a thing as "surplus labor", and it's not something you want to be. In general, it's terrible to be dependent on employment, but central economic policy has pushed hard to keep a large proportion of the population in this condition.

So NYC is basically fucked because it's so damn low to sea level.

Can't they build a levee?

>We're all going to drown and the world will freeze over then global warming will kick it up another notch!

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST LEONARD!

>>7414884

>>7414923
>killed
No, too slow for that, they'll just all move to Dallas and other areas

>>7412756
JUST START INVESTING ON ANTI OCEAN BUILDING PROTECTIONS. START COVERING THOSE NY BUILDINGS WITH ACUATIC SYSTEMS. ADJUST LIFESTYLE, PFFFF ITS LITERALLY JUST FUCKING WATER.

CAN I BE A MOD NOW?

>>7414963
I don't think you understand how far inland the water would reach in risk regions.

>>7415001
that's the best you can do?!

did you even read the article?

the global warming trend for the last 20 years is zero, this is not predicted by ANY of the computer models, and during this time the "greenhouse" gasses have been increasing

the models are WRONG WRONG WRONG

>>7415237
climate =! weather

>>7415251
you don't seem to refuting my statement that the previous warming trend has stopped for the last 20 years, that this is not predicted by ANY of the IPCC climate models, whilst at the same time the so called greenhouse gasses have been rising

>>7414933
and any spots that the ships can reach and use as ports are probably nowhere near existing cities, meaning we need to rebuild all our major coastal port cities again

and that's assuming we even have a way to unload the ships.

>>7415237
>>the global warming trend for the last 20 years is zero
the surface temperature trend for the last 20 years is zero

the heat content trend in the lower atmosphere and oceans never stopped being positive

>>7415567
short term trends < long term trends

>>7415591
do you have a source for this?

also can you account for the warming and cooling cycles shown in the Greenland summit ice core, none of which can have been caused by humans prior to 200 years ago?

>>7415600
>he thinks that the greenland summit ice cores go past 1855
>he doesn't realise that easterbrook is a hack
>he hasn't even questioned the validity of his source

laughinggirlsdotjaypeg

pic related, your ice core rebuttal with data points added for 1855 and 2009, now tell me if that's not unprecedented warming

>>7415600
>also can you account for the warming and cooling cycles shown in the Greenland summit ice core
the existence of natural climate variations in the past does not disprove the possibility of human-influenced contemporary variations

>source
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034016/article
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html
There's no one single source that I can show you, but if you look over the literature for the last ten to fifteen years it's been a pretty common topic of research.

I mean, it makes sense. Water has a specific heat 2-3 times higher than soil and the vast majority of the Earth's surface is water. OFC it's going to be an enormous heat sink.

>>7414963
Yeah, there are lots of options like this. It's also possible to just mechanically lower the global sea level by dredging material from the sea floor to above the water line as the glaciers melt. This would have the side benefit of creating artificial islands, which could serve, for instance, as hurricane baffles for the Florida coast, airports for coastal cities, private islands, and endless beaches for recreational, aquacultural, and residential use (as in the Dubai Palm Islands).

>>7415612
>he thinks that the greenland summit ice cores go past 1855

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
>Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time

>he doesn't realise that easterbrook is a hack
calling people names doesn't invalidate their data

>pic related, your ice core rebuttal with data points added for 1855 and 2009, now tell me if that's not unprecedented warming

what is your source for this? why does the temperature plot not match the extra datapoints?

>>7415622
>the existence of natural climate variations in the past does not disprove the possibility of human-influenced contemporary variations
so how do you conclusively determine if humans are causing a climate variation, or if it is natural?

I read the articles, they say extra energy has gone into the deep ocean? Why has this only happened over the last 20 years?

Why did none of the IPCC models predict the pause in warming?

Did the climategate emails really talk about falsifying data to show the results they wanted? Was fraud committed?

>I mean, it makes sense. Water has a specific heat 2-3 times higher than soil and the vast majority of the Earth's surface is water. OFC it's going to be an enormous heat sink.
Why did it only start sinking heat 20 years ago?

Look, here's the thing. If you feel that certain aspects of whatever haven't been accounted for in the peer reviewed literature, and that you have sufficient knowledge and expertise to legitimately question them, you can write and publish your own paper about it. Until then, I'm going with the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature... which is that the climate is changing more rapidly than is natural, that we're currently undergoing a mass extinction (at least 100 times the natural background rate), and that the driving force for all of this is human carbon emissions.

The science is there in a dozen different forms. It's not even that difficult to understand. Picking at one or two small points, even if you happen to be correct (though you are probably not, see above) does not discredit the science as a whole.

>>7413399
I know this is bait but Democrats are not in power. And Obama didn't get elected because of his stance on climate change.

>>7415709
>I'm going with the bulk of the peer-reviewed literature
Science isn't a popularity contest

>The science is there in a dozen different forms. It's not even that difficult to understand. Picking at one or two small points, even if you happen to be correct (though you are probably not, see above) does not discredit the science as a whole.
ALL the IPCC climate models being proved WRONG invalidates the science they based them on, AND their previous conclusions

The fact that scientists at the IPCC CONSPIRED to commit scientific FRAUD proves that their findings can NOT be trusted

>>7413482
Go to college, graduate at the tip of your class, work in the financial sector for 20 years, start a mutual fund, become a billionaire, bankroll Congress and every state legislature to support a green agenda, invest in nuclear technology and public relations.

That's how you fix this problem

>>7415718
> Science isn't a popularity contest
It sure isn't. It's a process of continual review and evaluation. That's why data is published openly, and it's why I have confidence in the results.

> ALL the IPCC climate models being proved WRONG
Nope, didn't happen.
> IPCC CONSPIRED
Also didn't happen. No, capital letters do not influence reality. Sorry.

>>7415729
Don't even bother. In 20 years the GOP will have no power and then we can finally do something about climate change.

>>7415691
>so how do you conclusively determine if humans are causing a climate variation, or if it is natural?
by examining the influences we can identify from non-human causes and determining whether those would be enough to cause current variation absent the human-derived influences

we've done this, and determined that natural causes alone cannot, under our current theories of physics and climate, account for observed warming

>I read the articles, they say extra energy has gone into the deep ocean? Why has this only happened over the last 20 years?
movement of heat within the climate is affected by the climate's state. we didn't expect the pause because prior models were basically expecting all of earth's climate to uniformly follow the background trend in heat gain. that turned out, surprisingly enough, to be a bad assumption when we only looked at surface temperatures as an evaluator of the models

>Did the climategate emails really talk about falsifying data to show the results they wanted? Was fraud committed?
no. if you think fraud was committed you don't understand what the emails were saying

>the climategate emails
Let's say you're curious about the distribution of colors of cars that pass by your house every day. You decide to hire a neighborhood child to sit outside your house for several hours and write down the color of every car that passes.

They're just a fucking kid, though, so you ask your spouse to poke their head out the window every couple minutes and make sure the kid is watching the road and not goofing off.

Your spouse reports that for three hours, the child was diligently watches the road and writes down every car's color. However, for the last fifteen minutes, the child was distracted by a friend, wasn't watching the road, and while your spouse was watching let several cars pass without noting their color.

Do you throw out the entire three hours of good data because the last fifteen minutes was junk? No, that's a fucking stupid idea. Instead, you keep all the data up until the last time point when you knew the data was reliable, and throw out the data you know is garbage.

Now replace car colors with temperature, the child with trees, and the spouse with decades of research into plant biology, and you have the climategate emails. Scientists, with the help of botanists, realized that above a certain temperature proxy reconstructions based on tree ring data are unreliable. However, below that temperature, they're still reliable. In order to have the best data, they kept and displayed only the data from the time period they knew the data was good.

>>7415729
> IPCC CONSPIRED
>Also didn't happen. No, capital letters do not influence reality. Sorry.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

datasets were manipulated to show a warming trend - do you deny this?

> ALL the IPCC climate models being proved WRONG
>Nope, didn't happen.
So which ones correctly predicted the 20 year pause in warming?

>>7415782
that's not what happened though, read the article. individual datasets that showed cooling were adjusted to show warming. The excuses given for that include urban heat island effects. Which would imply that the more recent results were actually too warm, not too cold. If that was the reason, then the data should have been revised downwards, not upwards

>>7415567
Did you actually look at the models or are you just assuming they are wrong because you read it on some blog? AR5 shows the models are accurate.

First Mini Ice Age not Sea Level

What's next There will be no Clouds? Sea turns into Vodka?

>>7415795
which models correctly predicted the 20 year pause?

do you agree there is a 20 year pause in warming?

do you agree that datasets were adjusted to show warming when there was cooling?

>>7415791
>that's not what happened though, read the article.
that's exactly what happened. that was climategate. your article is describing a different issue.

>Which would imply that the more recent results were actually too warm, not too cold
one of the results of the Berkeley study a few years ago was that adjusting for weather stations you think will show a UHI effect actually has a cooling effect on the temperature record. adjusting upward in this case is appropriate.

>>7415813
wait, i had that backward. removing the stations you think are subject to UHI warms the record - including them cools the record.

basically, it was the opposite of what everyone thought would happen.

>>7415691
>Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time
Wrong direction, buddy. What he meant by go past 1855 is that the ice core contains no data from 1855 to the present, because it takes decades for snow to turn into ice and the data doesn't begin until 95 years from that point. Easterbrook just assumed that the top of the ice core correlated to the year 2000 (His reasoning was that because there was "no significant warming" between 1987 when the ice core was drilled and 2000, the top accurately represented 2000).

In other words, the temps he labels as modern AGW are actually temps from 155 years ago, before AGW even took effect.

>>7415813
>that's exactly what happened. that was climategate. your article is describing a different issue.

assuming you are correct on this point, do you have any comment on this different issue?

didn't the emails show that they were discussing the adjustment of datasets? Other research has shown that the effects of the adjustments was to show warming when the originals showed cooling.

did the CRU(who made the adjustments) claim to have lost the original data?

>one of the results of the Berkeley study a few years ago was that adjusting for weather stations you think will show a UHI effect actually has a cooling effect on the temperature record. adjusting upward in this case is appropriate.
what? The effect of artificially raising the temperature around a weather station is that the weather station reads values that are too cold?

>>7415835
>wait, i had that backward. removing the stations you think are subject to UHI warms the record - including them cools the record.
UHI stations measure higher than the real temperature, so including them warms the average and removing them cools the average

>>7415854
Thanks, I see what he means now. Can you explain the extra datapoints on the graph he included?

I find that I am forming pantheistic beliefs, what purpose is there in living knowing that everything I do, or by living a modern standard of living then actions that I embrace, is pestilential? In such a dire manifestation of the Tragedy of the Commons, how am I expected to be cogent of the consequences of my actions and of other peoples' identical to mine without wanting to die (that is, if it can be reasonable to hold these beliefs simultaneously)?

>>7415809
From IPCC AR5 report

>do you agree there is a 20 year pause in warming?
This is a misleading question. Depending on your point of view, all the past warming has been made of "pauses" simple because you can always draw a horizontal line through noisy data even if the trend is positive by choosing your endpoints. There is no pause in global warming. Global surface temps are not the only indicator of warming and the models for it are accurate anyway.

>do you agree that datasets were adjusted to show warming when there was cooling?
This is also a misleading question. Datasets are always being adjusted based on algorithms that homogenize and correct for various effects in the temperature record. For example, data from urban areas tend to run hot because of all the material and energy in one place. But this data gets adjusted down by homogenization because it is compared to rural areas surrounding it. So outliers, whether they are hot or cold, get adjusted. Does this mean that warming is shown when in reality there was cooling? No, it means that warming actually happened.

>>7415871
>assuming you are correct on this point, do you have any comment on this different issue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
tl;dw those adjustments were necessary because the data was sourced from instruments never designed for long-term data collection and weren't properly calibrated to make sure their temperatures were consistent

also:

>UNC Best
>The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

>Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. ... Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the
adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

>>7415871
>Can you explain the extra datapoints on the graph he included?
The extra data points are extrapolated from another drilling site 28 km away from GISP2, where the temp from 1840 to 2009 was reconstructed. This site was 0.9 C warmer than GISP2. So he offset the temps for 1855 by 2009 by that.

>>7415871
>>7415981
And that other site showed 1.44 C warming between 1855 and 2009, hence the grey horizontal line shows the warming that would be apparent if the ice core data went up to the present. The huge difference between the ice core data and the extrapolated site data shows that ice core data should not be compared to present data measured by thermometers.

>>7415928
I would like to study this graph more. Only TAR seems to include all of the datapoints, and that one is very wide. None of them seem to expect a 20 year pause though.

>This is a misleading question. Depending on your point of view, all the past warming has been made of "pauses" simple because you can always draw a horizontal line through noisy data even if the trend is positive by choosing your endpoints. There is no pause in global warming. Global surface temps are not the only indicator of warming and the models for it are accurate anyway.
First you say there are always pauses, then that there is no pause.

>This is also a misleading question. Datasets are always being adjusted based on algorithms that homogenize and correct for various effects in the temperature record. For example, data from urban areas tend to run hot because of all the material and energy in one place. But this data gets adjusted down by homogenization because it is compared to rural areas surrounding it. So outliers, whether they are hot or cold, get adjusted. Does this mean that warming is shown when in reality there was cooling? No, it means that warming actually happened.

Yet the original records show declines in temperature, that were adjusted to be rises. The UHI effect would imply that the originals should be adjusted downwards, not upwards

>>7415949
I will watch the vid, but I wonder how wrongly calibrated instruments could be consistently increasingly wrong in the opposite direction

>The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.
Then why was data adjusted from cooling to warming if the UHI is indistinguishable from 0?

>>7416106
>Then why was data adjusted from cooling to warming if the UHI is indistinguishable from 0?
Because UHI wasn't the reason those stations were readjusted.

>but I wonder how wrongly calibrated instruments could be consistently increasingly wrong in the opposite direction
it's about a constant systemic bias, not an increasing one

For example, if you change from a mercury bulb thermometer to an electronic one, and the electronic thermometer is consistently two tenths of a degree colder than the bulb's readings would have been, then you'll have an overall cooling bias. Bias of that degree is irrelevant if all you care about is short-term temperature (what those stations were designed for), but incredibly relevant for

>>7416129
>incredibly relevant for climate studies

>>7416106
>None of them seem to expect a 20 year pause though.
>First you say there are always pauses, then that there is no pause.
There are no pauses in the global temperature trend. There are "pauses" in arbitrarily chosen sets of temps. This is not a contradiction, and only the former is relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

>Yet the original records show declines in temperature, that were adjusted to be rises.
Where? And why does this matter if the original records are showing flaws in measurement and not the real trend? You would have to argue that the corrections being made are somehow incorrect. But you have not discussed the merits of theses corrections, you have only appealed to the fact that they exist.

>The UHI effect would imply that the originals should be adjusted downwards, not upwards
If the UHI effect was the only thing producing incorrect outliers, yes. But it's not.

>>7412756
HA HA ! Jokes on you faggots! I live inna midwest.
I will celebrate for days when Commiefornia and Jew York are swept out to sea and the displaced scum are forever banished and turned away from everywhere they migrate to because they are the evil cancer upon this nation.

>>7412756
On an average, most people live about 350 to 800 feet (105-245m) above sea level

>how fucked are we?
In the grand scale of things it's a non issue.
People cram packed into coastal cities will have to start building new things 3 meters to the left. Oooh, aaahhhh, scary.

>>7416211
At the very least we will have to change the dominant economic model since those coastal cities hold a significant portion of global economy. You don't simply rebuild all that infrastructure elsewhere.

>>7413037
if only it were as simple to seperate them in reality as it is to type it on a screen. What we could do and what we are able to do are fundamentally controlled by the global political/economic system. Scientists don't get to decide.

>>7412756

This sea level rise will wipe out all beaches everywhere, you all realize that, ya?

This will totally disrupt tidal estuaries, tidal ecosystems, and so forth, worldwide.

This may increase saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers.

Lets discuss the ramifications of all the Fukushima type reactors located close to the shore. I saw a statistic showing that there are tons of these kinds of reactors all over the world. Sea rise is equivalent to lowering the nuke plant in terms of exposure to such things like Tsunamis.

>>7416361
>This sea level rise will wipe out all beaches everywhere, you all realize that, ya?
beaches will just move to higher level. someone's lawn will become the new beach.

Which will complicate property ownership..

Why bother visiting Venice if you have one 10 miles away?

>>7416541
Won't the sand take hundreds or thousands of years to build up on the shore though?

>>7415791
>datasets were manipulated to show a warming trend - do you deny this?
Yes, I do. It very clearly didn't happen. All scientists involved were exonerated of wrongdoing, despite a pretty detailed investigation (and suspensions of several in the meantime) and the one small error that crept into the portion of the study in question turned out to be insignificant when it was corrected.

Two good analyses, if you are genuinely interested (though I doubt you are).
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

>>7413106
>It will actually not change at all thanks to GW.

not sure if bait or just stupid

Hurricane Sandy proved you don't need that much a sea level rise to flood NYC. Which would be especially bad for Manhattan because the island has been hollowed out.

>>7416618
kek

maybe for scuba diving?

or an entire city in glass tubes like kelly tarltons

>>7416683
I don't have time to watch these right now, but I will. Can you give me a tl;dw?

have you looked at the breitbart link?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

the original data series were transformed from showing a cooling trend to showing a warming trend. Is this what happened or is it simply a lie? This isn't a simple adjustment of say 26 to 30, this is an adjustment that grows as the series progresses, in other words each successive adjustment is of a higher magnitude than the preceding one

>the one small error that crept into the portion of the study in question turned out to be insignificant when it was corrected
This is counter to what the original and adjusted datasets reported in the Breitbart article show

>All scientists involved were exonerated of wrongdoing
By who? The same organisation that receives billions in revenue for supporting CAGW? Surely there is no conflict of interest there?

>>7413399
>Fox babe said so, it must be true

>>7416956
>cites Breitbart
fgt pls

>>7416979
is that all you got?

why not attack the argument raised? I thought this was /sci/

>>7416956
I did read it, but didn't bother responding because it's all explained in those videos much better than I can explain it to you, complete with sources and so forth. Anyway, there's no scandal here. After all, why would NASA post the uncorrected data as well if they were trying to hide something?

I read the link and was unsurprised to see James Delingpole's name there. But let's not let the author's past foolishness influence this.
> What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments?
Here's the trouble. You have a journalist making a flippant claim about a subject that he clearly does not understand. There are legitimate reasons to correct various temperature data--the article mentions a few but not all (perhaps dishonestly or perhaps simply through ignorance)--and those corrections are all triple-checked with other data at the least. It's not like you're taking data from a single source, and the corrections are not "scribbled on the back of an envelope."

If Delingpole knew enough to legitimately criticize these measurements, he'd be able to publish a paper detailing why they're off. Same for you. If you know of a reason why the corrections made are unjustified, then by all means point them out. You want to read about the methodology? That's publicly available here:
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00510u.html
But no one has successfully found fault with those corrections in decades, only come up with incremental improvements and you can bet your ass that they're getting a lot of scrutiny by some of the best scientists money can buy.

>>7417001
>I did read it, but didn't bother responding because it's all explained in those videos much better than I can explain it to you, complete with sources and so forth. Anyway, there's no scandal here. After all, why would NASA post the uncorrected data as well if they were trying to hide something?

ok, I watched the videos, the first video seemed a bit propagandish, ridiculing Alex Jones etc, making the claim that anyone who disagrees is a "CONSPIRACIST"

I read a bit of the pub you cited, seems fairly reasonable so far. Will finish it tomorrow

In your opinion, has there been a pause in global warming for the last ~20 years as measured by the Remote Sensing Systems Satellite?

>>7415612
Don't know where you got that ridiculously false 1855 data point. What is the scholarly source for the 2009 point? Here's some real data.

Ref: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457
Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change,
Ole Humluma, Jan-Erik Solheimc, Kjell Stordahld,

>>7417111
Not my area of expertise, and I know nothing at all about them, so I don't have an opinion. It looks like they're analyzing tropospheric and stratosperic data from multiple sources?

Is this the one you mean?
> http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Figure 5 appears to be the most relevant to your question. I don't know how much that applies to the boundary layer nor how significant that trend is (but I see they have published the uncertainties). The caption suggests it can be attributed to AGW; you can read the papers that go with the data and see where you disagree with that if you like.

Environmental issues can be fixed easily.

But the real problem is the societal and cultural issues that keep people from fixing these things.

People are stupid and greedy and selfish and don't care about others and the environment. It's not human nature, it's how society has created us. I'm not saying it's not their fault though, because it's entirely their fault for not doing a tiny bit of self-reflection and realize they're a stupid asshole.

>>7417279
>Don't know where you got that ridiculously false 1855 data point. What is the scholarly source for the 2009 point?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1

>Here's some real data.
That appears to be the same data as the previous chart (note how it only goes up to 1855), with speculation based on a cyclical model. So no new data at all in fact. Why would you ignore temp data from the entire AGW period if you are trying to argue that AGW doesn't exist?

If you actually look at modern temps instead of pretending they don't exist, you'll see an unprecedented rate of warming.

Can't we just drink the water or vaporise it?

>>7417279
did you not look at your graph before you posted it?

>>7417438
it's salt water anon, you can drink it if you like, just dont vaporise it, because water vapor contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect

>>7416703
Why? Did you actually read the paper that uses a new more accurate model of the sun to predict this, or are you just going to read a sensationalist news article about it and not learn anything at all?

>>7416707
Hurricanes don't simply flood by raising the sea level, they blow the water onto land.

>>7416956
>the original data series were transformed from showing a cooling trend to showing a warming trend. Is this what happened or is it simply a lie?
Yes, it's what happened. It's just homogenization of outliers as I explained above. Here's a video that discusses this specific station and even shows how homogenization works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA

>>7416301
Time for a Technocratic uprising

Vice President Gore’s visit to Grinell Glacier in Montana’s Glacier National Park in September 1997 was designed to create a Relationship between Snowfall and Winter Temperatures in Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1948-1992
. At that time of the year, glaciers normally
reach their lowest ebb and new snowfalls have not arrived. Gore
pointed to the glacier, looked at the reporters and intoned som-
berly, “This glacier is melting.” The vice president then conflated global warming and the melting of Grinell Glacier.
The fact is that park’s glaciers have been melting for about 150 years, according to the park’s own literature. The melting began in the mid-19th century as the global temperature recovered from the frigid “Little Ice Age.” Little Ice Age (1450to 1900), Had Gore inspected the summer daytime temperature history of Western Montana, he would have discovered there’s been no warming whatsoever in the last century.

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...." Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." Barry Commoner cited a National Research Council report that had estimated "that by 1980 the oxygen demand due to municipal wastes will equal the oxygen content of the total flow of all the U.S. river systems in the summer months.""By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" Later that year, Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

Top men are working on a solution.

>>7417657
>>7417658
>>7417664

same shit different day with you isn't it

>>7417620

it already exists, look at NAFTA. The US has been a technocracy since the railroads and AT&T got big. Then world war one happened.

>>7417658
Except those would have been true if we didn't do something about aerosol pollution, so we did. Fucking retard.

>>7417620
A technocracy today would just be an authoritarian dystopia. STEM nerds aren't fit to rule.

>>7417428
>That appears to be the same data as the previous chart (note how it only goes up to 1855), with speculation based on a cyclical model. So no new data at all in fact. Why would you ignore temp data from the entire AGW period if you are trying to argue that AGW doesn't exist

Paper is from a different reference, apparently their own analysis of the raw data, see the graph. More importantly the actual data from
>>7417279
shows about a 0.50 degree increase from 1700 to 1855. Based on actual GISP2 data. Your graph shows a ridiculous jump of 2.5 degrees during the same time range. This is pre-AGW. What is the source for that 1855 data point? Because its not GISP2 data. And this graph:
>>7417428
has been thoroughly debunked. That sad trick of taking very high resolution (essentially continuous) instrumental data and tacking it on to data that has a resolution of about 100 years,is statistical nonsense. Put the blade of that hockey stick through a 100 year moving average. It disappears! Not to mention Marcott's redating of the temp proxies (using dates significantly different from the published dates) to change down turning data into upturned data. Pic related, the results of Marcott's redating.

Good article debunking the Marcott hockey stick:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/were-not-screwed
Written by a professional statistician, someone who can untangle serious statistical mistakes.

>>7417475
Data corrections appear to be inaccurate. For example:
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373,

Lei Zhang, Guo-Yu Ren, Yu-Yu Ren, Ai-Ying Zhang, Zi-Ying Chu, Ya-Qing Zhou

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

The larger effects of relocations, homogenization, and urbanization on Tmin data series than on Tmax data series in a larger extent explain the “asymmetry” in daytime and nighttime SAT trends at Huairou station, and the urban effect is also a major contributor to the DTR decline as implied in the “asymmetry” changes of the annual mean Tmin and Tmax for the homogeneityadjusted data at the station.

See pic for a comparison of "clean temperature data" (fitting NOAA regulations - Class 1/2 temperature sites) and the results of the NOAA adjusting all data. The rate of warming is doubled by adjustments. Yet that disagrees with clean data. Correct adjustments, of course, would show broad agreement with clean data.

>>7417475
That "debunking" has been debunked:
http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html
The adjustments cause an increase in the rate for warming by 33%!

I am once again disappointed by /sci/. You'll find more scientific discussions about the matter on /pol/.

Let me quote from IPCC:
>It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950. {3.7.2, 3.7.4, 5.6.3, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, Figure 13.3}
Yes, from 1901 to 2010 sea levels rose about ~0.19m.

>global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confi-dence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process-based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1.
Yes, even the worst case projections for sea level rise until 2100 are below 1m.


There is evidence that global warming exists. However, consequences are extremely badly understood. Fearmongers and gullible idiots tend to always focus on the negative. Precipitation for example will increase in most areas of the globe and could in combination with the minor temperature rise potentially increase the fertility and habitability of our planet. The higher amount of CO2 increases the growth speed and yield of flora and thus further increases fertility.

Global warming could also save lifes.
>The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

We won't be able to prevent global warming and instead of wasting ressources in futile attempts to stop or reverse it, we should simply adapt. Isn't this what life is all about? How come we can adapt to dramatic technology changes but fail to adapt to 2°C temperature increase?

>>7419093
Let me expand.

>We won't be able to prevent global warming
We also won't be able to limit global warming with current idiotic politics. China already has much higher per capita emissions than Europe. While Europe is actually reducing emissions in spite of population increase, the rise of emissions in China, India and Africa is so enormous that global emissions still increase by more than 2% per year. Foolish policies in western nations won't do anything but cause harm to everyone because the problem is not us anymore but those billions of people who with increasing wealth also have increasing emissions but can't afford the luxury of reduced emissions that white nations have. No matter what our incompetent politicians do, emissions will rise at least until 2030, possibly beyond 2050.

The only solutions are technological progress and adaptation. Engineers and scientists will solve the "problem", not politicians and fearmongers. The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone and the fossil age will not end because we run out of fossils. If we have sufficient technological progress so that technologies with little or no emissions outperform technologies based on fossils, emissions will rapidly decline even in a superior free market scenario. If we successfully adapt to climate change, protect ourselves from possible disadvantages and exploit potential benefits, our world will be a better one than it is now.

Instead narrow minded and short sighted idiots attempt to enforce futile policies and regulation to the most advanced nations on the planet who also are responsible for the large majority of scientific contribution. If we harm ourselves, we risk actually slowing down technological progress and therefore prolonging the fossil age and worsening the very "problem" said idiots try to combat.

The conclusion is that instead of regulating emissions and harming our economies we should greatly increase funding for science and everything will solve itself.

>>7419113
Yet the atomic age will end because we ran out of love :(

>>7419093
>How come we can adapt to dramatic technology changes but fail to adapt to 2°C temperature increase?
That isn't how life works. We aren't standalone, a good deal of everything is heavily intertwined and shifting ecological conditions tends to carry far reaching drastic effects that are difficult to predict. That you bring up the "global warming will save lives" nonsense is just par for the course, we're already overpopulated, we already have enough resources, and we still can't manage to avoid massive unchecked waste and inefficiency. What makes you think that'll change?

You don't just "adapt". Adaptation is not a thing that is done in a vacuum. /sci/ is indeed terrible, and you're part of the problem. You reject fearmongers and readily embrace the other side of the spectrum, it's ridiculous behavior.

>>7419093
>Precipitation for example will increase in most areas of the globe and could in combination with the minor temperature rise potentially increase the fertility and habitability of our planet.
This would be a wonderful argument if our existing infrastructure did not already exist in the places that are going to become shit, and not in places that are going to become good. By 2100 in the USA alone, we're talking $5 billion/year in additional property damage (in today's dollars), $25 billion/year in reduced crop yields + replanting, massive production cuts in various manufacturing sectors, total collapse of most fisheries, increased cost of goods transport... well, you get the picture. We do a lot of forestry where I live, and all the companies are gearing up for major changes, putting off building new mills because they'll have to relocate most of their operations in 20-30 years. They're not fools, and they're not doing this on some sort of misunderstaing.

Climate change is causing and will cause a fuckton of waste, and it puts our food and manufacturing security at risk.

> consequences are extremely badly understood
Yes, it appears that they are.

>>7419233
>By 2100
That's way too far off for remotely realistic planning. The entire microcomputer revolution took place in the last 40 years, and we're just getting the hang of fast, cheap computers and genetic engineering. In the 40 years before that, it was practical aviation, space travel, affordable cars, nuclear bombs, and nuclear power. You think you can look more than 80 years ahead and have a clue of what people will care about?

>$5 billion/year in additional property damage
>massive production cuts in various manufacturing sectors
Why would there be all this extra work to do, and massive production cuts? You're talking gibberish.

>>7419069
topkek. Once again you've shown you deniers have no idea what you're talking about. All this moron has done is drawn two lines from the arbitrary endpoints of the graph and claimed that those represent the warming trend. The warming trend is determined by a best fit line. This is not even a matter of this person not understanding climatology, it's not understanding high school level statistics. The endpoints of the graph are just two data points, they are meaningless by themselves. So no, the debunking has not been debunked. Please do not post such laughably idiotic sources again or I will be forced to conclude you are trolling to make deniers look bad.

>>7419259
Not gibberish. I just figured that since you were denigrating the knowledge of others, you were up on the economic research. My mistake. Factory production is drastically reduced in high temperature conditions; the alternative is crippling energy costs in cooling, for which most factories in the world are not equipped. As an example, car plants in Detroit suffer ~5% production loss when the temperature goes over 85 F. Each additional day of this costs them some amont of money, and it adds up quickly when you consider that this effect occurs in basically every manufacturing facility in the world. In addition, outdoor labour takes a huge hit.

We've built our existing infrastructure to suit the climate as it was and is. The cost of refitting to regain production under a new climate will be tremendous.

And factories are the easy part. Farmland takes decades to get going right, building it is an environmental nightmare in itself, and as soon as we get new farmland set up in some locale, the conditions will shift again. Roads will have to be built, new electrical transmission and distribution, local utilities, rails, waste management facilities, locks/canals....

>>7414930
> That the people hire profit locally while the society suffers globally?
Fuck society.

Life is about change. Either adapt to it or be run over by it.

If your nation does not have the internal resources to build new ports, then yes, you are fucked. I would suggest moving.

>>7419282
>Factory production is drastically reduced in high temperature conditions
...and yet, they didn't move all the factories up to Canada. Instead, they went to China, which isn't particularly known for cold weather.

In the last twenty years it was profitable to shut down factories on one continent and build new ones on another, to serve the same market, but somehow in your head, we're stuck with our current factories for the next 80 years.

This is really fucking dumb. Just so fucking dumb.

An increased greenhouse effect from CO2 isn't even going to make hot weather. What it will do is mostly reduce cold weather. It's cold, dry air that's lacking in the Earth's most important greenhouse gas: water vapor. CO2's a drop in the bucket in most of the tropics.

In previous hothouse Earth periods (which were extremely friendly to life, very much unlike the snowball Earth periods) there was little difference in temperature between the equator and the poles. The world was fairly consistently warm and humid. It had less extreme weather, because of smaller temperature differences.

>>7419302
Anyway, if this thing with accelerated melting is real, we have to get on that. We'll have to lower the sea level at a pace of a couple of inches every year to keep it from rising. That'll take a lot of dredging, which will be expensive, but it'll have other benefits, creating new usable land area and especially a lot more coastal property.

>>7419025
As I already said, the paper proves nothing because one ice core from Greenland tells us very little about global temps.

Also, their model has been shown to not even predict data outside of the ice core correctly. It's a model that explains the ice core and only the ice core, unlike the CO2 model. Thus it's incorrect and has no use except as a prop for deniers. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/

>Your graph shows a ridiculous jump of 2.5 degrees during the same time range.
What are you talking about? Look at the y-axis. The Marcott graph rises at most 1 degree. You are confusing the projection of the current trend into the future (labeled A1B) with the data

>This is pre-AGW.
Now I'm doubly confused. Clearly the data around 2000 is not pre-AGW.

>What is the source for that 1855 data point?
Already gave it to you in the post you're replying to.

>That sad trick of taking very high resolution (essentially continuous) instrumental data and tacking it on to data that has a resolution of about 100 years,is statistical nonsense.
But that's not instrumental data, it's all proxy data. This data agrees with the instrumental record, but it has no higher resolution. Essentially you have devolved into a god of the gaps argument: 'there could be big variations in climate hiding in between the gaps of data! Therefore AGW false!' Either use the data we have to argue, or argue we can't know nuffin.

>>7419331
>But that's not instrumental data, it's all proxy data. This data agrees with the instrumental record
But it doesn't though. Remember the whole "climategate" thing, where they had to throw out the proxy data that disagreed with the instrumental record, and tack the instrumental record on in its place to make it all look consistent?

The proxies aren't instruments by another name. They're things we measure because we can't measure the temperature. They also change for reasons other than temperature, so what they give us is a poor estimate of the temperature.

>Essentially you have devolved into a god of the gaps argument
What an idiotic attempt at sophistry. An analogy with "the god of the gaps" makes no sense at all here. And it's not, "we can't know nuthin'", it's "you clowns don't know what you're talking about".

Arguing that we're actually ignorant of something, because the current standard of science in a particular field is shit, is a perfectly valid and productive, even essential, part of the scientific process. Being aware of the limits of our knowledge is far better than being confident in unsound reasoning and unreliable data.

>>7419054
>See pic for a comparison of "clean temperature data" (fitting NOAA regulations - Class 1/2 temperature sites) and the results of the NOAA adjusting all data.
1. The pic does not show us the distribution of the different classes of thermometers, it assumes these thermometers are evenly distributed across the country and thus accurately measure the national temp. That is a dumb assumption to make.

2. This has little to do with homogenization which deals with many issues that have little to do with the classification of thermometer. Many of these corrections are based on changes over time, such as changing the type of thermometer from gas to liquid, or changing the time of measurement from the afternoon to the morning. Compliant thermometers are only accurate right now. It's pretty disingenuous to say that this implies something about the cooling trend per decade over a long time scale.

>>7419344
>Remember the whole "climategate" thing, where they had to throw out the proxy data that disagreed with the instrumental record, and tack the instrumental record on in its place to make it all look consistent?
News flash: screaming climategate is the fastest way for your post to get identified as gibberish. Climategate is the bottom of the barrel for conspiracy minded deniers and has no relevance to anything being discussed here.

>The proxies aren't instruments by another name. They're things we measure because we can't measure the temperature. They also change for reasons other than temperature, so what they give us is a poor estimate of the temperature.
That's what I said in the beginning of this thread when you retards tried to use ice core data that wasn't even correctly labeled. That's why we should only take seriously proxy data that agrees with instrumental data and other robust data. And guess what that data says? Global warming is happening and it's because of the CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere.

>What an idiotic attempt at sophistry. An analogy with "the god of the gaps" makes no sense at all here.
The argument I just replied to was that there could be variability hiding in between the resolution of the proxy data. That is literally a god of the gaps argument. Anything can be hiding in our lack of knowledge, that doesn't mean you can just ignore the considerable knowledge we have. The knowledge we have clearly says AGW is real. Your wish for AGW to be not real is not a valid argument. That is really all your "Climatologists don't know anything about the climate" argument amounts to.

>>7419344
>the whole "climategate" thing
>four guys at one Uni
fgt pls

>>7419352
No.

>>7413405

Either exterminate 3/4 of humanity, or stop guzzling shit like a fucking slovenly heap of amerilard.

>>7413106

Not even that. There will be a sunspot minimum as per the 22 year solar cycle. Some chucklefuck posted a brainfart about it causing a mini ice-age, probably a shill, and it ran as a meme until it was shut down but the damage is done. Now retards actually believe that global warming will be offset by a mini ice-age.

>>7419432
It was an example of where the proxy data clearly diverged from the instrumental record.

All of this shit with "adjusting" instrumental records also shows that they're using inappropriate instrumental readings (measurements taken incompetently, or in places where the temperature would be strongly locally affected by human activity) as a questionable proxy for the measurements they want.

The actual history of suitable measurements for accurately tracking global temperature only goes back a couple of decades.

>>7419682
>There will be a sunspot minimum as per the 22 year solar cycle.
That is NOT what the new little ice age story is about. They are talking about a large reduction in sunspots (meaning a small reduction of solar output) starting around 2030 and lasting for roughly the rest of the century.

>>7420040
what if climate change is all just a big hoax and we make a better world for no reason

please hang yourself

>>7419302
>they went to China, which isn't particularly known for cold weather.
Cost of labour in China: $2/hour (Canadian dollar conversion)
Cost of labour in Canada: $10/hour minimum, more like $35/hour including benefits due to strong unionization.

Gee, I wonder why they're willing to accept a 5% to 10% efficiency loss....
> This is really fucking dumb. Just so fucking dumb.
You said it, not me.

>>7419352
>The argument I just replied to was that there could be variability hiding in between the resolution of the proxy data. That is literally a god of the gaps argument.
That's not what "god of the gaps" means at all, you moron.

"God of the gaps" is where, as you get finer and finer resolution, you keep declaring that your thing, whatever it is, is whatever can fit between that resolution and still be missed. It is NOT where, as you get finer resolution, and a new phenomenon appears that wouldn't be detectable with the lower resolution, you take the possibility seriously that the phenomenon was there all along.

Holy shit, what is the deal with climate alarmists turning conventional standards of sound reasoning upside down to fit their narrative?

"Look, we invented microscopes, and just in the nick of time to discover that all of these germs suddenly appeared at the same time! Now we have to deal with germ infections in *addition* to all the well-known diseases we get from miasma and imbalance humors!"
"Uh, weren't those there all along, causing the sicknesses we attributed to miasma and humors? We just couldn't see them with the naked eye."
"God of the gaps! God of the gaps!"

Idiot.

>>7420040
>It was an example of where the proxy data clearly diverged from the instrumental record.
What was an example?

>All of this shit with "adjusting" instrumental records also shows that they're using inappropriate instrumental readings (measurements taken incompetently, or in places where the temperature would be strongly locally affected by human activity) as a questionable proxy for the measurements they want.
Oh god, you mean they are correcting data effected by small errors? OH THE HORROR!!!

The only thing ignoring useful data does is feed into the denier security blanket that climatologists don't know anything about the climate, thus anything climatologists say can be ignored. It's rank idiocy and you should be embarrassed for posting such a weak argument.

>>7420046
>what if climate change is all just a big hoax and we make a better world for no reason
This is the stupid idea that makes climate alarmism so untrustworthy: there are MANY people who honestly don't care whether it's true, but just see it as a lever to force policy change that they thing is going to save the world.

And they're the same kinds of idiots who were pushing communism in the early 20th century: people who take simple ideas with superficial appeal, and go balls-out confirmation bias whenever they think or talk about them, and attack critics instead of taking criticism seriously.

A lot of them are back-to-the-land anti-industrialists, who are enthusiastic for a return to subsistence farming as the main human occupation. Even if you explain to them that this will result in a massive population dieback, they will basically say, "Well, we don't like to talk about that, but we're okay with it."

Others are just economic incompetents. They think like, "Well, it would be nice if we didn't have air pollution and just ran everything on solar panels and batteries, so let's ban burning all coal and oil next year." They say things like, "What's more important, the future or some MONEY?" like money doesn't represent production of the things that sustain life and comfort.

If "climate change" (AGW) is real and the way we need to deal with it is to cut CO2 emissions drastically (two separate issues, actually), then that's a serious sacrifice. Cutting emissions so severely and quickly would cost many lives, seriously reduce quality of life, and reduce the rate of technological and other advancement.

If it's a lie, it's a murderous one.

>>7420071
>It is NOT where, as you get finer resolution, and a new phenomenon appears that wouldn't be detectable with the lower resolution, you take the possibility seriously that the phenomenon was there all along.
That's the exact same thing, idiot. You are just assuming the phenomenon is hiding in the gaps of our knowledge. We already know that in the past CO2 has caused rapid climate change. That is not hiding, it is in plain sight.

So what is your argument exactly? That rapid climate change has happened in the past and thus isn't a problem now? That's idiotic, just because it happened before doesn't mean it isn't harmful to us. So even if the argument that the earth has experienced climate changes as rapid as the one we are going through now was valid, it changes nothing. You've just admitted GW is real, now you have to somehow argue that this isn't caused by us even though we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and you have to argue that this rapid change wouldn't somehow be harmful, even though rapid change in the past has led to mass extinctions. Thanks for arguing 1/3rd of my position for me.

>>7420108
>people who take simple ideas with superficial appeal, and go balls-out confirmation bias whenever they think or talk about them, and attack critics instead of taking criticism seriously.
That's what you're doing by attacking proponents of climate change instead of the idea itself. Oh the irony.

Comparing these people to communist bogeymen, saying that they want to ban all fossil fuels immediately; only in the fevered mind of the impassioned denier of scientific facts does this constitute a logical argument. No one is going to be killed by the gradual reduction of CO2 which is already under way. People are going to be killed if we do nothing as you want. AGW is a fact, and politicizing the argument doesn't get around that.

>>7420076
>>It was an example of where the proxy data clearly diverged from the instrumental record.
>What was an example?
Jesus. Read the thread at least a couple of replies back before you jump in with stupid questions.

Climategate. Remember "hide the decline"? That was throwing out the part of the proxy data that disagreed with the instrumental data.

Whether global warming is a real thing (and not even whether it's anthropogenic, but just whether the global surface temperature had actually been increasing on average from the 19th century to the turn of the 21st) is still controversial, because:
a) the instrumental record is compromised by local effects (land generally gets hotter as people build and cultivate, regardless of the wider climate) and changing instruments and measurement practices over time,
b) proxies, such as tree ring data, are unreliable (trees in particular will generally grow faster in warmer years, but they will also grow faster if there's more CO2 in the air if the temperature is the same), and
c) the claimed warming is small enough to fit into plausible error factors of these data sources.

No amount of massaging bad data can turn it into good data.

>>7420125
>That's what you're doing by attacking proponents of climate change instead of the idea itself. Oh the irony.

I was responding to this line:
>what if climate change is all just a big hoax and we make a better world for no reason

I'm not opposed even slightly to the idea of climate change. The climate always changes, obviously.

I'm not even opposed to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I think it's an interesting and plausible idea, worth taking into account as a possible long-term outcome.

I am opposed to bad arguments for policy change, and the people who push them. I've unloaded plenty of ammunition ITT against the claim that AGW is a certainty, a certain disaster unless we deal with it, and that the best and only way to deal with it is by drastically and urgently cutting CO2 emissions. I'm not attacking proponents of "climate change" INSTEAD OF the idea itself.

>>7420044

It IS what the story is about.

>2015
>still debating climate change

You know there are still people who believe the world is flat. You don't need to get into a retarded argument with them. Let them be retards.

>>7420147

The following facts are indisputable:

>CO2 is a greenhouse gas
>human activity produces a lot of CO2 pollution
>theory: human pollution of CO2 may cause the climate to change
>observation: the climate is changing

Now how do you argue the idea? Are you a scientist or an idiot? There's nothing to argue, this is a FACT.

>>7420135
>Jesus. Read the thread at least a couple of replies back before you jump in with stupid questions.
I've read every post in this thread. Climategate had thousands of emails and several quotes that deniers frequently misrepresent. So talking about climategate as an example is stupid. I asked you to clarify.

>Climategate. Remember "hide the decline"? That was throwing out the part of the proxy data that disagreed with the instrumental data.
No proxy data was thrown out. Tree ring data is corrected because of AGW's effects on trees' sensitivity to climate. This has not occurred before 1960 and all proxies before that are in agreement with each other and the instrumental record.

>a) the instrumental record is compromised by local effects (land generally gets hotter as people build and cultivate, regardless of the wider climate) and changing instruments and measurement practices over time,
Local effects are corrected by homogenization.

>b) proxies, such as tree ring data, are unreliable (trees in particular will generally grow faster in warmer years, but they will also grow faster if there's more CO2 in the air if the temperature is the same),
Tree ring data isn't necessary to show modern warming, so this is irrelevant.

>c) the claimed warming is small enough to fit into plausible error factors of these data sources.
False.

None of these make GW controversial. It's accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. The only controversy is manufactured by deniers who do not know what they're talking about.

>>7420149
This is the story:
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo
http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

It's about cycles syncing up to create decades of low activity once every few hundred years, not just a more mundane low point of a few years that occurs every couple of decades.
>"The upcoming Maunder Minimum is expected to be shorter than the last one in 17th century (five solar cycles of 11 years)," Zharkova told Live Science in an email. "It will be lasting about three solar cycles."
The prediction is for reduced solar activity from the 2030s to the 2060s or 2070s, though it could be shorter or stretch on for longer.

>>7420147
I read what you were responding to. I'm saying that it's ironic you complain about people attacking the critic and not the critique when that's what you just did in the same post. No one in this thread has claimed that we should immediately cut fossil fuels, so you are not arguing with relevant ideas.

AGW is not simply a plausible possibility, it is the only theory we have that can explain modern temps, and it is supported by the vast majority of climatologists. Acting on this this theory is perfectly valid. There are actions taken based on scientific theories all the time, but when it rubs against your preferred politics, suddenly this is not valid. Look at yourself honestly and you'll see that you are arguing emotionally instead of factually.

>>7420168

>maunder minimum

Yeah, sunspot cycle. There is nothing extraordinary about it which is why there's even an established name for the phenomenon: Maunder minimum. Disingenously beaten up to imply it will affect Earth's climate in any meaningful way.

>>7420162
>>Climategate. Remember "hide the decline"? That was throwing out the part of the proxy data that disagreed with the instrumental data.
>No proxy data was thrown out.
Oh, shut your fucking liehole.

That "hide the decline" was specifically about leaving off the tail of tree ring proxy data that didn't support the point they were trying to make, while using the rest of it. They were cherry-picking their data.

>Tree ring data is corrected because of AGW's effects on trees' sensitivity to climate.
Are you familiar with the concept of circular reasoning?

>>7420172
Maunder minimum does not happen every 22 years. It happened once 300 years ago.

>>7420176

Fuck off dickhead.

>>7420175
>That "hide the decline" was specifically about leaving off the tail of tree ring proxy data that didn't support the point they were trying to make, while using the rest of it.
Wrong, fucktard. The decline refers to the decline in the reliability of tree ring data. It has nothing to do with cutting off tails. And if the tree ring data doesn't agree with instrumental then it's wrong. So it wouldn't even be cherry picking.

>Are you familiar with the concept of circular reasoning?
Do you not understand that tree ring data is not some linchpin to the AGW argument? It is merely one proxy among many. AGW does not stand on tree ring data, so it's not circular.

>>7420180
>Reading is haaaaard
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Maunder-minimum

>>7420189

Fuck off dickhead.

>>7420190
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGwUcye8yM

>>7420171
Here's what you say:
>attacking the critic and not the critique
Here's what I said:
>attack critics instead of taking criticism seriously
See the difference? No?

"Attacking the critique" is acting as an ADVOCATE for the position. If everybody "attacks the critique", then they only have to make small mistakes to dismiss valid points, satisfy themselves that they're right, and end up making themselves MORE confident as a consequence of having flaws in their position pointed out.

"Taking criticism seriously" allows you to refine and improve your position, or to recognize its flaws and change it completely. This is how you make yourself more than a meme vehicle.

>AGW is not simply a plausible possibility, it is the only theory we have that can explain modern temps
But. It's. Not.

"Modern temps" may not actually be notably higher, globally, than temperatures in recent history.

Innate variability, rather than any special driving force, can also explain the drift in temperatures, if it's real. We don't have sufficiently fine-grained data to say there's anything remarkable about the rate of temperature change we think we see starting as soon as we began taking temperature readings.

The case for AGW is an extremely technically involved one, which requires detailed analysis and interpretation of many different data sets, in the context of models which are hard to evaluate for applicability. It's not the no-brainer you're making it out to be.

>>7420108

Holy shit talk about strawman fallacy. Go back to /pol/ idiot.

>>7420185
>The decline refers to the decline in the reliability of tree ring data.
First: I maintain that you're wrong about this. I'm not conceding the point, but...

Second: Why would this make it more okay, in your mind, to "hide the decline"?

>Do you not understand that tree ring data is not some linchpin to the AGW argument? It is merely one proxy among many. AGW does not stand on tree ring data, so it's not circular.
Then they should not be using tree ring data at all to make the case for AGW.

You can say it doesn't make the argument COMPLETELY circular, but it injects an element of circularity. When you're making the case for AGW, you have to purge your reasoning of all prior assumptions that AGW is happening. That includes all "data adjustment" or "data quality evaluation" based on any model in which AGW is happening or predicted.

>>7420195

Fuck off dickhead.

>>7420200
>"Attacking the critique" is acting as an ADVOCATE for the position. If everybody "attacks the critique", then they only have to make small mistakes to dismiss valid points, satisfy themselves that they're right, and end up making themselves MORE confident as a consequence of having flaws in their position pointed out.
Why would you assume that by "attacking the critique" I meant point out small mistakes that don't invalidate the point? Oh because it's convenient for your argument.

>But. It's. Not.
It is. This is what climatologists find.

>"Modern temps" may not actually be notably higher, globally, than temperatures in recent history.
Whether or not they are higher is irrelevant. Is the climate rapidly warming? Yes. Is rapid warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. Are we increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. These are undeniable facts.

As I already said, we know that rapid warming caused by CO2 has happened in the past. We also know that this has caused mass extinctions. So what exactly is the argument that this has happened in the past supposed to do? The only way I can see this argument benefitting you is if we assume that because something happened in the past, that means it's safe. Natural != safe and our addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is not natural anyway!

>Innate variability, rather than any special driving force, can also explain the drift in temperatures, if it's real.
Only if you ignore all the evidence pointing to driving forces and not randomness. You are essentially arguing that we should ignore evidence to get a conclusion that will make us feel better. That's not how science works.

>>7420200
>We don't have sufficiently fine-grained data to say there's anything remarkable about the rate of temperature change we think we see starting as soon as we began taking temperature readings.
AGAIN, whether or not the rate of warming happened in the past, it's still remarkable because it will be harmful to us and because we are causing it and have the power to reduce the cause. The entire argument that there is variability hiding in our lack of knowledge is irrelevant. There is variability in plain sight and it is not all random.

>The case for AGW is an extremely technically involved one, which requires detailed analysis and interpretation of many different data sets, in the context of models which are hard to evaluate for applicability. It's not the no-brainer you're making it out to be.
Yes and this detailed analysis has already been done by climatologists. It's a no-brainer because the question was already answered by the experts. You are just pretending the answer doesn't exist.

>>7420207
>Second: Why would this make it more okay, in your mind, to "hide the decline"?
Why in your mind is correcting incorrect data not okay?

>Then they should not be using tree ring data at all to make the case for AGW.
Why should they not use data that agrees with the instrumental record and other proxies?

>When you're making the case for AGW, you have to purge your reasoning of all prior assumptions that AGW is happening. That includes all "data adjustment" or "data quality evaluation" based on any model in which AGW is happening or predicted.
The point of the Mann paper was not to make a case for AGW. It does not mention AGW. The point was to show that the warming in the 20th century is anomalous. The case for AGW being real does not rest on this finding. The case is that humans increase CO2 and CO2 increases warming.

>>7420218
>>But. It's. Not.
>It is. This is what climatologists find.
Not all of them. It's possible to be an expert and still disagree.

Going with the crowd of "experts" is the easiest way to get yourself seen as an expert, and to get along with them. Every field has its sacred cows, and a legion of mediocre men who legitimize themselves by agreeing on them.

The problem with AGW is that it's a vague statement of what's happening very slowly over the span of a couple of centuries. If it were wrong, there'd be no way to make a clear demonstration of the fact, which is how most "sacred cows" of science, technology, and policy get slaughtered.

To clearly demonstrate that the big right-thinking AGW bundle (that global warming is real, that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, that it will be disastrous, that the only way to prevent the disaster is to make laws to stop burning fossil fuels, and that this actually will work and prevent the disaster) is wrong, in the face of a plurality of experts who will persistently insist it is correct no matter what, one has no option but to somehow influence global policy and wait a century.

>>"Modern temps" may not actually be notably higher, globally, than temperatures in recent history.
>Whether or not they are higher is irrelevant.
This is just too ridiculous to respond to. I'm out.

>>7420250
>Not all of them. It's possible to be an expert and still disagree.
It's possible to be a biologist and not believe in evolution.

>Going with the crowd of "experts" is the easiest way to get yourself seen as an expert, and to get along with them. Every field has its sacred cows, and a legion of mediocre men who legitimize themselves by agreeing on them.
Right, science is just a clique of popular girls. All that evidence and reasoning stuff is just fake and a way to fit in. It never ceases to amaze me the stories people like you need to invent to cling to your preconceived notions, whether you deny vaccines, climate change, evolution, round earth, etc. The reason these theories have massive support is not because they are popular, it's because the evidence is massively in their favor. There is really no point in going farther into the argument if you are going to fall back on the science conspiracy, which you people always end up falling back on.

>This is just too ridiculous to respond to. I'm out.
So you are just going to ignore the clear explanation of why your argument is irrelevant and call it ridiculous. As I've said many times, global warming is not bad simply because it's unprecedented. That the argument has been framed this way is simply your tactic. It has little relevance to the larger debate.

>>7420250
You heard it here folks, the idea that just because something may have happened in the past doesn't mean it's safe is just "too ridiculous to respond to".

Our fossil fuel problems will be over soon. I'm halfway done with my ini
infinite energy generator that is guranteed to work. Wait until 2020 and you'll know who i am.

>>7420392
Although I do believe in AGW this image is somewhat nonsensical. From a perspective of money given by PACs and wealthy elite like the Koch brothers, their collective donations pail in comparison to what the US Federal government spends on researching climate change. In fact, I read in a Greenpeace article that the Koch brothers have spent $97 million dollars in anti-AGW lobbying from 1997 to 2012, whereas the US federal government spends $20 billion in climate change research per year. Now, you may argue, that any amount of such bribery can and is abhorrent, the point is that these factions' collective pools pail in comparison to the government's.

Chomsky said it!

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17137/the_end_of_history

>>7420656
Noam Chomsky is the most intelligent complete idiot I've ever seen.

>>7420685
Amen

>>7420729
What the fuck?

>>7419273
No, a moron thinks that rise over run isn't how a slope is computed.
Besides you're hiding behind pathetic minutia.

Using terms like "idiotic" and "laughable" does not change the fact that you've been debunked.

As if a best fit line would yield a vastly different slope from rise over run in this particular situation.

>>7419331
>>Your graph shows a ridiculous jump of 2.5 degrees during the same time range.
>What are you talking about? Look at the y-axis. The Marcott graph rises at most 1 degree. You are confusing the projection of the current trend into the future (labeled A1B) with the data

I'm talking about this graph:
>>7415612
What is the source of the 1855 data point? Why does it jump 2.5 degrees for GISP2 (between 1700 and 1855) when the actual data GISP2 data shown here
>>7417279
jumps a mere 0.5 degrees.

Marcott redated proxy data to invert the direction, that is the published dates lead to a decline in the temp proxies near the end of the graph as shown here:
>>7419025
Mann & Co like to tack on instrumental data to create their hockey sticks.

>>7419345
>1. The pic does not show us the distribution of the different classes of thermometers, it assumes these thermometers are evenly distributed across the country and thus accurately measure the national temp. That is a dumb assumption to make

No, its a dumbass thing to think that there aren't rural areas across most of the united states. Notice, I never said it was a perfect representation. But note how the homogenized "corrected" data is hotter than the bad data. Yeah, "correcting" for the Urban Heat Island Effect by making things even warmer.

>This has little to do with homogenization which deals with many issues that have little to do with the classification of thermometer
Nonsense. A good site means its trustworthy data. I didn't say "classification of the thermometer" I said fitting NOAA regulations for the classification of the entire site. Compliance is, as checked in that study, for the entire period of the temperature history of that particular site.

The study below provides strong evidence that "homogenization" inaccurately raises temperatures, why did you ignore it?

Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373, Lei Zhang, Guo-Yu Ren, Yu-Yu Ren, Ai-Ying Zhang, Zi-Ying Chu, Ya-Qing Zhou

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.”

Essentially all "corrections" to temperature data have increased the rate of warming. And the effect of those corrections is as high as the warming effect it self. In any other science, someone trying to sell that to an audience would be laughed off the stage. It is inexcusable that the people who make a living off the idea of significant global warming are the same people who turn raw data into "corrected" data.

>>7421205
>No, a moron thinks that rise over run isn't how a slope is computed.
Rise over run OF A LINE. What line describes temp data? The best fit line. Jesus, have you gotten past high school yet?

>Besides you're hiding behind pathetic minutia.
If how warming is calculated is minutia, you shouldn't have posted a link badly attempting to talk about it in the first place.

>As if a best fit line would yield a vastly different slope from rise over run in this particular situation.
I look forward to you proving Cowtan wrong with actual math. Until then you haven't debunked shit and you should shut the fuck up.

Doesn't climate change ultimately prove that democracy was a mistake?

All the problems of the industrial economy can be laid at the feet of representative democracy. Maybe it's time for the world to admit that representative government is somewhat foolish.

>oceans rise 10ft in 50 years

>>7421214
>I'm talking about this graph:
The graph is not mine. Be more clear next time.

>What is the source of the 1855 data point?
Why do you keep asking a question I've already answered? Reread your posts, I'm not posting the link again.

>Why does it jump 2.5 degrees for GISP2 (between 1700 and 1855) when the actual data GISP2 data shown here >>7417279 jumps a mere 0.5 degrees.
The second graph does not contain any more data than the ice core data in the first graph. The red line is a projection based on a cyclical model (which has been show to not predict data outside the ice core) and is not data at all. If you had read the post replying to the second graph you would not be asking this question.

>Marcott redated proxy data to invert the direction, that is the published dates lead to a decline in the temp proxies near the end of the graph as shown here:
Post proof of this. The reason the initial proxy analysis shows a decreasing trend is because tree ring proxies starts to diverge from the instrumental record in the 60s because various factors changed tree ring sensitivity to temperature. This phenomenon was known before Marcott even made this analysis. It has nothing to do with changin dates on proxies.

>>7419331
>Also, their model has been shown to not even predict data outside of the ice core correctly. It's a model that explains the ice core and only the ice core, unlike the CO2 model. Thus it's incorrect and has no use except as a prop for deniers. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/

>>7417279 confirms the GISP2 study here:
>>7415612
It is a different analysis; by different authors. It yielded essentially the same result. And the curve fitting (the green line) can be completely ignored. So when you quote RealClimate as having "debunked" the article, that's a strawman argument. The purpose of posting that graph is not to defend a wavelet/fourier curve fitting. Its to show that the GISP2 results from >>7415612 are solid and the jump in the data from about 1700 to 1855 is about 0.5 degrees, not about 2.5 degrees in the 1855 point added to the graph given here:
>>7415600

BTW, if you cite references "debunking" data which counters AGW that are written by people whose livelihoods do not depend directly or indirectly on government funding for AGW, I could take them much more seriously.

>>7421240
Temperature rise over time run. Sigh.
You're getting angry because your beliefs are getting debunked and you have no substantive counter argument.

And now, you said *shit*. Yup, things are looking really dim for those who defend the rewriting of temperature histories as solid science.

Any time "corrections" are the same order of magnitudes as the actual effect, your results are worthless.

>>7415928
That graph was not published in AR4. It was published in AR5. They rewrote things because the prediction graph that was actually published in AR4 failed. Pic related. Its the AR4 predictions with updated temperatures. Those brackets are the 95% confidence intervals. The latter points fell out of that very large range of prediction.

Yes, despite the predicted temperature ranges being very large, they still missed.

>>7421288
>Temperature rise over time run
not according to thermodynamics

>>7421261
>>What is the source of the 1855 data point?
>Why do you keep asking a question I've already answered? Reread your posts, I'm not posting the link again

You have not answered the question. You have now dodged the question or mis-interpreted it 3 times. That is suspect. Please cite the reference.

>>7421236
>No, its a dumbass thing to think that there aren't rural areas across most of the united states.
When did I say there were not rural areas across the United States?

>But note how the homogenized "corrected" data is hotter than the bad data. Yeah, "correcting" for the Urban Heat Island Effect by making things even warmer.
Temps are corrected down for the UHI effect by homogenization. They are just corrected up more because there are more errors in temp measurement than UHI. That you think UHI is the only possible factor that can create outliers just shows your biased view of climatology.

>Nonsense. A good site means its trustworthy data.
So if a site is good now, all the data it's ever recorded is good? That is obvious nonsense.

>I didn't say "classification of the thermometer" I said fitting NOAA regulations for the classification of the entire site. Compliance is, as checked in that study, for the entire period of the temperature history of that particular site.
First of all, the paper the pic you posted is from uses its own classifications, not NOAA's regulations. Once again you are pulling shit out of your ass. Next time read at least the summary of the paper before you go showing everyone you don't know what you're talking about.

Second, the only classification this paper uses is the placement and density of heat sinks around the thermometer, which would lead to a higher reading. It completely ignores the other factors climatologists consider when correcting data, such as time of observations. So all Watts has done is weight his data to devalue stations that run hot (ignoring anything that could make them run cold) and then SURPRISE SURPRISE it turns out this makes everything colder than NOAA's analysis. This is just childish and there's a reason the paper has never been published.

>>7421246
People are so quick to install dictatorships and authoritarian regimes at the first sight of trouble. Democracy has very little relevance to climate change, but it's easier to blame because there are no rich and powerful lobbies for it.

>>7421236
Continued

>The study below provides strong evidence that "homogenization" inaccurately raises temperatures, why did you ignore it?
Because unlike you I actually take the time to read papers and research them, you obnoxious fuck.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that this study looks at a nonstandard technique of homogenization and finds that it does not correct for UHI. The standard technique of homogenization used by climatologists does correct for UHI, and there are several studies that prove this, such as http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

How many times am I going to have to correct your misrepresentations of your own sources?

>>7421246

Yes. The is a pure tragedy of the commons that needs an iron fist to slap back into shape. Leaving it to the commoners will result in continuing bread and circuses.

>>7421276
Wow, what a mess of mistakes you've made for me to untangle.

1. The realclimate article debunks the model represented by the picture posted here >>7417279. I never said it debunks anything else, so I have no idea what you are calling a "strawman".

2. No one has argued that the data in GISP2 is not solid. You have claimed that the Humlum graph somehow disagrees with the 1855 data point. One is for an ice core proxy, the other is instrumental data. Ice core proxies do not have the resolution to determine the temp in a specific year, so arguing that another ice core analysis rejects the instrumental record is simply false.

>BTW, if you cite references "debunking" data which counters AGW that are written by people whose livelihoods do not depend directly or indirectly on government funding for AGW, I could take them much more seriously.
If you could post a single non-fatally flawed paper that supports your position I would be amazed. Unfortunately my position is only supported by real climatologists funded by real scientific institutions. You'll just have to settle for that.

>>7421288
>Temperature rise over time run. Sigh.
What are you babbling about. No one has claimed that the slope of a line is not calculated by rise over run. The issue, which has flown clear over your empty head, is WHAT LINE DESCRIBES THE DATA. Keep reading that sentence until you actually understand it. A line drawn between two points arbitrary points a data set describes those points, it does not describe the data.

>You're getting angry because your beliefs are getting debunked and you have no substantive counter argument.
You're inability to understand simple concepts does not mean my counterargument don't exist.

>Any time "corrections" are the same order of magnitudes as the actual effect, your results are worthless.
This is a meaningless and completely made up rule of thumb. Errors can accumulate over time and cause huge displacements. That is precisely why data needs to be examined for outliers. The idea that the higher the magnitude of disagreement with surrounding stations, the less likely it needs to be corrected is backwards logic only a delusional denier could embrace.

>>7421296
>That graph was not published in AR4.
Why would it be?

>They rewrote things because the prediction graph that was actually published in AR4 failed. They rewrote things because the prediction graph that was actually published in AR4 failed. Pic related.
Once again you've completely misrepresented the facts. That pic is from a draft of AR5. And it was rewritten because it was improperly baselined to 1990 when it should have been baselined to the ranged trend surrounding 1990. Since 1990 was an unusually hot year, the improper baselining offset the projection for all the years after it, making them hot.

Again, how many times am I going to have to correct your misrepresentations of the facts? Is this simply a pattern of gross incompetence or are you attempting to be purposely misleading and failing?

>>7421299
I answered the fucking question the first time you asked it with a link to the paper the data is from in this post >>7417428

Why you could not simply look at the first reply to your post is a mystery to me.

>>7412756
There are so many reasons to not give a fuck. The main one being mortality. I know it's selfish but I don't really care what happens after I don't exist anymore.

>>7421351
Gosh, might that be because that graph is not GISP2 data? Silly me. I thought that someone adding data to a Greenland icecore temperature graph would be using, you know, Greenland ice core proxy data. Not redated Alkenone proxies and such. Should have known better:
>>7419025
I guess that's why you were cagey about answering the question.

>>7421350
>And it was rewritten because it was improperly baselined to 1990 when it should have been baselined to the ranged trend surrounding 1990
> Look at my after-the-fact unSkepticalScience apologia.

That graph is originally from UN IPCC AR4, figure 10-26:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
The specific graph is the lowest, lefthand graph; and there's been some coloring changes and the addition of more scenarios. But that's the original source. When they took that graph for AR5, they realized their predictions had failed miserably. So they thought that no one would remember UN IPCC AR4, Figure 10-26. Instead they shifted the predictions downward in the AR5 graph:
>>7415928
hoping no one would notice the shift. Then unSkepticalScience put out the absurd and false story about how they originally got the starting point wrong. What they actually did was push down the entire prediction envelope to tell a story of the temps being right in the middle of the predicted values. Sorry, AR4, Fig. 10-26 is there for everyone to see.

This, BTW, is why they removed the reference to AR4, Fig. 10-26 from the final publication of AR5.

>>7421344
>What are you babbling about.
So much anger, to little substance.

A rate of changes is measured by the change in numerator value divided by the change in the denominator value. No straight line needed. All the rate of temperature change values (for global temperature) I've seen were calculated in this manner. Comparing the endpoint data to the starting point data. Not doing a least squares fit and calculating a slope. But BFD. What difference does it make? This is a red herring. The "debunking failed" even if a different way of calculating a rate of change gets a bit different value (assuming its a legit method).

>>Any time "corrections" are the same order of magnitudes as the actual effect, your results are worthless.
>This is a meaningless and completely made up rule of thumb.
You're kidding me. Outside of climate science, have you ever seen a physical science type paper where the "corrections" are on the same order of magnitude as the effect? Me neither. That's because something like that would be very difficult to publish.

>>7421330
>1. The realclimate article debunks the model represented by the picture posted here >>7417279 (You). I never said it debunks anything else, so I have no idea what you are calling a "strawman".

Then why did you post the RealClimate reference? In this discussion, the curve fitting was not used as a basis for an argument.

>Unfortunately my position is only supported by real climatologists funded by real scientific institutions.

The inevitable appeal to authority. Nice circularity there. True believers control the data, therefore only true believers get to publish a temp data analysis, therefore true believers are true. The only exception is UAH/RSS satellite data. Much more accurate data, which thoroughly disagrees with the rewritten surface temps.

But here is a paper, that somehow got past the True Believers gate:
Data corrections appear to be inaccurate. For example:
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373, Lei Zhang, Guo-Yu Ren, Yu-Yu Ren, Ai-Ying Zhang, Zi-Ying Chu, Ya-Qing Zhou

“Our analysis shows that “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature."

I guess because the analysis has a Chinese background, they authors weren't completely destroyed. They'll probably never be able to get a tenured professorship in the U.S., though.

>>7423111
>Gosh, might that be because that graph is not GISP2 data? Silly me. I thought that someone adding data to a Greenland icecore temperature graph would be using, you know, Greenland ice core proxy data. Not redated Alkenone proxies and such. Should have known better:
Or maybe you should have read the label on the datapoints right on the graph that clearly says it's site data? Or maybe you should have listened when I told you right here >>7415981 that the data was not from GISP2? Yes, it is your fault for repeatedly claiming that I did not answer your questions when I did. Your (stupid) assumption that the data was from GISP2 (even though I told you it wasn't) doesn't really explain why you just ignored the paper. It's because you're pigheaded and did not bother to make sure you were correct, not because you are making reasonable assumptions.

>>7423155
>That graph is originally from UN IPCC AR4, figure 10-26:
>When they took that graph for AR5, they realized their predictions had failed miserably. So they thought that no one would remember UN IPCC AR4, Figure 10-26. Instead they shifted the predictions downward in the AR5 graph:
Wow, what a story. Too bad it's a load of bullshit. Get your eyes checked, that doesn't even look like the graph we're talking about. It's on a much larger timescale and illustrates an unnamed SCM. Prove that its prediction failed. Then show how it is connected to the AR5 graph. I'm sure this will not turn out to be flat out wrong like all your other idiotic claims that I have easily corrected.

>Then unSkepticalScience put out the absurd and false story about how they originally got the starting point wrong.
Right, he just made this up. It's not like the AR5 report itself talks about proper baselining.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm

Jesus, is it possible for you to make a single claim that can't be debunked with google? Are you just throwing out as many falsehoods as you can on the hope that I will miss one?

>>7423167
>A rate of changes is measured by the change in numerator value divided by the change in the denominator value. No straight line needed.
Your posts are a goldmine of stupidity. You just described "rise over run", aka slope, aka the gradient of a line. How many times are you going to ignore my clear explanation of what he did wrong and repeat his wrong claims over and over?

>All the rate of temperature change values (for global temperature) I've seen were calculated in this manner.
Yes. The way you do this is by choosing two arbitrary points on the BEST FIT LINE describing the data. You can then calculate the slope of this line from the coordinates of those points. It does not matter which points you choose, because they all will produce the same slope as long as they lie on the same line. Choosing two arbitrary points in the data, however will give you different slopes each time. Because you are not calculating the slope of a line which describes the data, you are calculating the slope of a line which only describes the two points you chose! The points in the data do not form a single line, so you will get different slopes! Why is this so hard for you to get? It's literally high school level math!

>What difference does it make? This is a red herring. The "debunking failed" even if a different way of calculating a rate of change gets a bit different value (assuming its a legit method).
Well let me see, if you are attempting to prove that the difference in warming is not 3%, and you use a wrong way to calculate that difference, and you get a different answer from 3%, does this mean you have proven 3% is wrong? No, it means you are bad at math. Prove Cowtan is wrong with real math, or you have not debunked him! Am I in Bizarro world where logic does not apply? You have to debunk someone to debunk them!

>>7413467

Why doesn't this image take about the workers owning/controlling the means of production?

It is as if the author fell for Stalin's propaganda: that socialism means State Capitalism, ie the State owns and runs everything just like a capitalist.

Image:
>This is what Capitalists believe.

>>7412756

change your fucking habits you pieces of shit, and why do you morons think you need to keep trying to reprove this shit to less than's such as yourselves. Just so you can hear them say you're right. I fucking hate these crybaby faggots already. this topic attracts all the fucktard's like gnats to honey.

We know it's doomsday! (oh wait a minute, that's it, it's a religion to you dabblers of science isn't it).

Waste your "lead scientists" time with more of your piss-moaning with at least demands for solutions and change the agenda about it already shitbirds!!!

>>7423167
>You're kidding me. Outside of climate science, have you ever seen a physical science type paper where the "corrections" are on the same order of magnitude as the effect?
No you're kidding me if this is your argument. You don't even read the papers you post, so it's not surprising to me that you haven't seen something in papers. If you don't read them, you won't see anything in them. Let's face it, you've shown yourself to be neither well-informed nor very literate. Your rule of thumb is made up, and even if it wasn't it can't apply to this situation, because the errors being corrected are identified SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUGE OUTLIERS. As I said earlier, it makes no sense to claim that the higher the magnitude of disagreement with surrounding stations, the less corrections should be put to it. That is what would result from your rule of thumb being applied.

>>7423186
>Then why did you post the RealClimate reference? In this discussion, the curve fitting was not used as a basis for an argument.
Because I wanted people to know that the model is incorrect. See >>7419331

>The inevitable appeal to authority.
Actually it's an appeal to expertise. Climatologists are experts on climatology.

>True believers control the data, therefore only true believers get to publish a temp data analysis, therefore true believers are true.
I thought they were just paid to pretend to believe in AGW by the government? Get your conspiracy theories sorted please.

>But here is a paper, that somehow got past the True Believers gate:
And if you actually read that paper you posted (seeing a theme here?) and did some research you would see that they are studying a nonstandard homogenization technique that the IPCC doesn't even use. The standard homogenization technique has been proven several times to correct for UHI. Maybe you should change up your tactics and actually read the studies that did this instead of once again making a fool of yourself. Or this >>7421319

>>7423892
The only one having a tantrum is you. Did baby wet himself?

I think we can all agree that no real action is going to be taken until the first American cities start having chronic flooding problems, at which point it will be decades too late to do anything. How bad is it going to get? Is there any point in hope?

>>7423932
Agriculturally, isn't most of the food production concentrated inland? So, american food production should be mostly O-K.

Massive population displacement will be a huge issue however, about 80% of the US's population is concentrated in costal areas. Millions will be homeless, and bankrupt.

If you lived on the coast right now i'd buy some cheap property, maybe some land, maybe start a business building affordable prefab homes, and prepare to ramp up production in 10 years.

>>7412756
>only 10 feet

It should be more.

>>7423922
OTEC, you little cunt. don't give me no horseshit about it not being cost efficient you dumb little faggot. That's the beginning of our solution, lots of space, minimal footprint, major hands on tech expertise required, meaning lots of critical/high-pay jobs. in other words, you're omitted you dumb fuck bum. So you can get the bale hacking on the street you deserve shitbird. worthless >>7423922 little bitch.

>>7423922
admit it here if you had to look it up. do the world a favor and end yourself afterwards PLEASE.

>>7423943
That pic shows ~100 feet rise

>>7423938
fracking, nickel mining, core mining, iron extraction and acid waste....unrestricted zone development, cfc's, heavy water, daily human waste etc. don't acknowledge people who bring up these sort of things, although, I can't blame the fucktard too much, a quick look on onesearch banged a whole bunch of articles pointing to agricultural reform. while it's good for calling out what we eat, it's a blatant disregard for the real issues at hand. seems the political/financial hand is reaching into academia with increasing boldness.

>>7423922
alright, i didn't exactly mean for it to kill itself, because who knows with these emo faggots these days. but it is a worthless dumb fucking piece of shit and it seems to know it.

>>7424001

Knowing is half the battle

>>7413408
lol
>>7413415
OTEC, for one
if you have to look it up admit it here
that you're a worthless empty head piece of shit, then leave and never come back.

>>7412756
Friendly reminder

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

>>7424024
>Temperatures and CO2 do not show a correlation
Into the trash it goes

>>7424024
Even if this video wasn't both disingenuous and outright wrong about specifics, it's as though these people have no notion of ecology. Ecological collapse is the major threat.

>>7424027
>I have historical proof to back up my assertion

>>7424030
ecological collapse =\=global warming

There is only one true solution to our energy crisis and it starts with

N U C L E A R
U
C
L
E
A
R

>>7424213
disappear, ASAFP

>>7423938
>Agriculturally, isn't most of the food production concentrated inland? So, american food production should be mostly O-K.

The problem is that most of the worlds best agricultural land is in low-lying river valleys and coastal areas.

>>7423944
>>7423948
>>7424001
Who the fuck are you talking to? Take your meds schizo.

>>7423938
Food production won't be hurt much by rising sea levels. It WILL be hurt greatly by the changing temperature. The tropics are going to move toward the poles and growing things in southern America is going to yield a lot less.

>>7424938
>It WILL be hurt greatly by the changing temperature. ... growing things in southern America is going to yield a lot less.
Oh, bullshit. Most of the temperature increase is going to happen in the coldest areas.

Southern America crop yields aren't going to be less, crop yields in Northern America and Canada are going to be considerably greater, and anyway, by the time any of this becomes significant, we may no longer be relying on open-air agriculture for food production.

>>7424213

>>7423943
>tfw safe

>>7425320
OK.

Where's your global study of these anecdotes that's peer reviewed?

>>7425324

This data is fed into the pool and will raise the average.

Everybody with half a brain can see that.

If you honestly believe there is someone laboriously siftiing through the data looking for weatherstations that have a less than optimal setup, you are in for a suprise.

>>7425333
But that's just random variation. You're not taking into account all of the weather stations that have had air conditioned malls or refrigerated meat lockers built around them, and thus read much lower temperatures.

We can safely assume it balances out.

Anyway, the people who correct for such factors are pure-hearted scientists and none of them believe that convincing the world that global warming is happening will reduce pollution and save the environment.

>>7425333
[citation needed]

Dear Anon,

Please quote a statistical study that demonstrated these were standard data points and not outliers, and that science has ignored these outliers and continued to use them.

Otherwise, stfu.

>>7412756
>climate gate
>leading climatologists around the world wrote programs that end up predicting global warming when fed constant temp data
>new study says we'll all be dead tomorrow if the government doesn't give them a quintillion dollars
>faggots believe it
Sasuga /sci/, kill yourselves.

>>7412756
Pretty fucked. People are often unaware of Post Glacial Rebound and don't take it into effect when calculating the rise of sea level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

>>7425348
>air conditioned malls or refrigerated meat lockers built around them, and thus read much lower temperatures
That's not how energy works

>>7425385
Dude, it's a joke. You read it backwards. Built around them, so the weather station's inside.

>>7421319
>homogenization used by climatologists does correct for UHI,

BS, you obnoxious fuck. It spreads UHI to all data. Nice misrepresentation buddy.
Yeah, I know the process. Spread UHI to rural data. Then compare rural data to urban data. Look! They both increase at the same rate, so UHI is corrected. How pathetic.

>/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf
BTW, I couldn't care less about "just so stories" papers that don't describe the absurd details of spreading UHI to all data points.

In the far past, cities were smaller and there was less concrete and asphalt - Weaker UHI
In the near past, cities have more concrete, asphalt and size - Stronger UHI.

So corrections to temps should subtract significant values from recent readings and less so for readings in the far past. But the actual "corrections" subtract a great deal from the distant past and little (or add temps) to the near past. Exactly wrong. And absurdly false. Seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

>>7423855
>read the label
The one that says "GISP site temps?" or the one which arbitrarily added nearly 1.5 degrees C and said wow, it would be really hot if you believe Marcott's debunked hockey stick and add that data to Greenland ice core data. Nevermind that that is apples and oranges.

>It's not like the AR5 report itself talks about proper baselining.
talking about baselining =/= moving the data because you don't like the result.

Here is the graph from UN IPCC AR4, figure 10-26, with the updated temperatures. Looks a lot like
>>7421296
Doesn't it? No wonder you had to fudge things; the red arrows show how much things were moved to hide the abject failure of the predictions.

>>7425442

And here is a graph the US Historical Climate Network temps raw vs. "corrected." Notice how way
back in the past, the "corrections" are the largest, even though that is when the UHI is the weakest.
On the other hand, in the recent past where the UHI is the strongest, the corrections are small.

In short, the "corrections" do the exact opposite of what actual UHI corrections should do.

>>7423910
>>7423910
>>7423910
> corrections are only to outliers.
Yeah right, now you're just making it up.

>Actually it's an appeal to expertise. Climatologists are experts on climatology.
No, its an appeal to authority. Someone with a title does not mean they're an expert, nor does it mean that they are accurate. You data and logic instead.

>The standard homogenization technique has been proven several times to correct for UHI.
Absolute rubbish. It spreads the UHI to rural data and then the compare the rate of temp increase between rural and urban data and note that they are they same. Then, they say, UHI was "corrected!" The clean data discussed here
>>7419054
is much cooler than the "corrected" data. Sorry, the data says you're wrong. I guess you should stick with appeals to authority.

And the Chinese paper, from here >>7423186, P.6:
What did they say? "Therefore, the relocations of Huairou station from the downtown to the suburb produced breakpoints or inhomogeneities, but they at the same time also largely reduced the
urban warming trends,"

In other words, they corrected for UHI by moving to the cooler suburbs. BUT
"the data homogenization performed for welding the breakpoints now results in a recovery of the
urban effect as shown in the adjusted temperature series."


In other words, they proved Exactly What I Said. Homogenization spreads the UHI to rural/suburban temperature stations! That is why you get ridiculous "corrections" such as shown here:
>>7421288

>>7423880
Give it up, you don't need to do a least squares fit to estimate a slope. Most people use end points for rate of temp increase. Being pedantic doesn't change the fact that the "debunking" was debunked.

>>7425442
>BS, you obnoxious fuck. It spreads UHI to all data. Nice misrepresentation buddy.
Oh wow, what a brilliant fucking rebuttal to the science! You have slain me!

>Yeah, I know the process. Spread UHI to rural data. Then compare rural data to urban data. Look! They both increase at the same rate, so UHI is corrected. How pathetic.
Nice misrepresentation, buddy. Why is it so hard for you to read one fucking paper?

>BTW, I couldn't care less about "just so stories" papers that don't describe the absurd details of spreading UHI to all data points.
How the fuck is UHI being spread to all data points when homogenization would compare any urban area to the rural areas surrounding it? You are just repeating the letters UHI without a single rational argument.

>So corrections to temps should subtract significant values from recent readings and less so for readings in the far past. But the actual "corrections" subtract a great deal from the distant past and little (or add temps) to the near past.
Yeah that argument would make perfect sense IF UHI WAS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOURCE OF ERROR. It's like trying to argue that it has never rained over a lake because the water level is lower than it was in the past. Does this argument make sense to you? What else effects the water level in a lake? You have not shown that homogenization does not correct UHI. You have shown nothing. Get the fuck out.

>The one that says "GISP site temps?"
Yes. Do you understand the difference between an ice core and a site temp?

>or the one which arbitrarily added nearly 1.5 degrees C
No one added 1.5 degrees to anything you fucking loon. I have shown you exactly where the data comes from.

>talking about baselining =/= moving the data because you don't like the result.
Reality =/= your conspiracy theories

>>7425479
>Here is the graph from UN IPCC AR4, figure 10-26, with the updated temperatures. Looks a lot like
No it doesn't look like that graph. I don't understand why you are trying to connect a properly baselined graph (notice how it says 1961-1990) from AR4 to an improperly baselined graph from a draft of AR5. Is it because you just can't admit that you were wrong when you claimed the graph was from AR4? You sound like a petty child.

>>7425496
>And here is a graph the US Historical Climate Network temps raw vs. "corrected."
>Notice how way back in the past, the "corrections" are the largest, even though that is when the UHI is the weakest.
Again, homogenization does not only correct for UHI. Your obsession with UHI just shows that you are only paying attention to the parts of climatology that will lead to the conclusion you want if you ignore everything else. This is delusional thinking.

>>7425571
> corrections are only to outliers.
When did I say corrections are only to outliers? You are claiming as a rule that large corrections are wrong. Homogenization will produce large corrections by the nature of correcting outliers. Therefore your claim is wrong. I know reading is hard for you but try this:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

>No, its an appeal to authority. Someone with a title does not mean they're an expert, nor does it mean that they are accurate. You data and logic instead.
I did not refer to anyone with a title. I referred to real scientists. I have given you several papers from these scientists and their logic and data speaks for themselves. Your sources on the other hand I've debunked easily, either because you misrepresent them or because they lack logic.

>It spreads the UHI to rural data
Where does it do this? Once again you're either grossly incompetent at reading or a fucking liar.

>The clean data discussed here
Of course it's much cooler than the corrected data. Because the only criterion your unpublished study used for determining which stations were clean was heat sinks. If you only correct for a source of hot stations, you will not correct for cold stations and get cool measurements. The only thing the comparison tells us that more corrections for cooling were needed!

>>7425571
>And the Chinese paper, from here
So apparently you are out of arguments since you are just going to repeated the ones I've debunked multiple times: The homogenization technique discussed in the Chinese paper tells us nothing about the homogenization technique used by the IPCC and other climatologists. You are beating a strawman to death. Only someone who only read the title of the paper and thought "Gee, well there is only one way to do homogenization" could make this mistake. Again, why do you not read the papers you post? Why do you continually misrepresent what they say? Do you need to go back to school so you can learn how to read primary sources?

>In other words, they proved Exactly What I Said.
Only if what you said was 'A nonstandard homogenization technique that the IPCC doesn't use is flawed'. But you said 'the homogenization technique the IPCC uses is flawed'. Do you not see the difference?

I've responded to every source you've given. You continually ignore the paper I posted showing standard homogenization does correct UHI. Respond or get the fuck out.

>>7425579
>Give it up, you don't need to do a least squares fit to estimate a slope.
I NEVER SAID YOU DID FUCKTARD. I SAID YOU NEED BEST FIT TO DESCRIBE THE DATA. YOU CAN GET A SLOPE OF ANY LINE YOU WANT. THE PROBLEM IS WHICH LINE.

>Most people use end points for rate of temp increase.
Lie. The endpoints are arbitrary and you would get a completely different rate of warming depending on the variability of the endpoints. If your starting point is a colder year than average, and your endpoint is hotter than average, does that mean all the data in between shows a warming trend. NO. The endpoints tell you jack shit about the trend as a whole.

>Being pedantic doesn't change the fact that the "debunking" was debunked.
Being delusional does not debunk anything.

>>7425319
>>7425320
>>7425336
>>7425340
>>7425341

Poor Anthony. He tried this and it all blew up in his face.

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

>>7412756
I say the same to you as I say to all the other dooms day cults:
Call me when when your prophecies are actually happening!
Untill then - fuck off!

>>7426158
the prophecies have been happening for decades.

Good prophecies ain't cheap these days.

>>7426158
>>7427134

/thread

>>7413415
Solution to global warming: houseboat.

Shhhhhh...houseboat.

>>7425721
>BS, you obnoxious fuck. It spreads UHI to all data. Nice misrepresentation buddy.
Oh wow, what a brilliant fucking rebuttal to the science! You have slain me!
Yeah, go back and read Page 6 of this paper:
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality Theoretical and Applied Climatology February 2014, Volume 115, Issue 3-4, pp 365-373, Lei Zhang, Guo-Yu Ren, Yu-Yu Ren, Ai-Ying Zhang, Zi-Ying Chu, Ya-Qing Zhou

I said that homogenization spread UHI to rural/suburban temperatures, they proved it.

>>7425788
>In other words, they proved Exactly What I Said.
>Only if what you said was 'A nonstandard homogenization technique that the IPCC doesn't use is flawed'.
You're just making it up. You have no evidence that their method of homogenization is substantively different.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here is an example of dogma, not science.
When a scientist is presented with evidence that their methods are flawed, they acknowledge them.
When a secular dogmatist is presented with evidence that their methods are flawed, they deny them.

>>7425784
>When did I say corrections are only to outliers?

>>7423910
>because the errors being corrected are identified SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUGE OUTLIERS.

You're so angry that you can't maintain a coherent argument.

>>7425809
>>Give it up, you don't need to do a least squares fit to estimate a slope.
>I NEVER SAID YOU DID FUCKTARD. I SAID YOU NEED BEST FIT TO DESCRIBE THE DATA. YOU CAN GET A SLOPE OF ANY LINE YOU WANT. THE PROBLEM IS WHICH LINE.

What about this?
>>7419273
>The warming trend is determined by a best fit line.
A least squares fit is, of course, the BEST FIT line.

BTW, That pic isn't even remotely close to the actual temp data. That why I was careful to refer to the temp data situations, not arbitrary data sets.

Again, you're so angry, you're bordering on incoherent.

>>7425784
>Because the only criterion your unpublished study used for determining which stations were clean was heat sinks.
Again,you're just making it up. The temp stations had to fulfill NOAA regulations. And avoidance of UHI.

>>7425729
Well, to everyone else the graph here:
>>7425479
looks like the graph here:
>>7421296
Specifically, they show the actual temperature data falling beneath the predictions. Since this graph:
>>7425479
is definitely from AR4, the unSkS "improperly baselined" excuse ain't going to cut it. And that graph demonstrates the utter failure of the models.

>>7425721
>>or the one which arbitrarily added nearly 1.5 degrees C
>No one added 1.5 degrees to anything you fucking loon. I have shown you exactly where the data comes from.

As the pic here shows:
>>7415612
GISP2 at 1855 (end of the series) is -31.6, you added a data point at 1855 which is at -29.5. So you added even more that 1.5 degrees, you added to 2.1 degrees to create the data point labeled "1855."

Or are you trying to say that Marcott's busted hockey stick should be dropped on top of GISP ice core data? Even though he redated proxies to take downturned temperatures and make them upturned?
>>7419025

>>7428171
>Yeah, go back and read Page 6 of this paper:
The paper analyzes a nonstandard homogenization technique, so it's irrelevant.

>You're just making it up. You have no evidence that their method of homogenization is substantively different.
I posted a paper that proves the standard technique corrects for UHI. You just can't read. For a breakdown of how exactly their technique differs, read the post in Variable Variability blog about which 4chan will not let me post a link to.

>>7428199
>because the errors being corrected are identified SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUGE OUTLIERS.
Nice job taking part only part of a sentence so you could ignore context. The full sentence is:

>Your rule of thumb is made up, and even if it wasn't it can't apply to this situation, because the errors being corrected are identified SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HUGE OUTLIERS.

Do you see the words "this situation"? I am talking about the errors being corrected that you are whining about, not all corrections. You are a dishonest shithead and anyone can see it.

>>7428216
>What about this?
>The warming trend is determined by a best fit line.
What about it? I will say it again, because for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this simple, obvious concept: The warming trend for a particular range of years is determined by finding the slope of the best fit for the data. Does this mean I said that you "need to do a least squares fit to estimate a slope". No. You can estimate the slope of any line, regardless of whether it is a best fit line. But that would be irrelevant to the discussion. The source you posted calculated the slope of an irrelevant line which does not represent the warming trend of the data.

>BTW, That pic isn't even remotely close to the actual temp data.
Are you retarded? It's not supposed to be. It's an example that shows why a line between endpoints does not describe the data between the endpoints.