/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15990420]

The historic data on Arctic sea ice extent had been severely altered to fit the global warming narrative. This gif shows the data before and after it was changed.

[Anonymous No.15990438]

so there is substantially more polar sea ice now than there was in 1970.
how do global warming enthusiasts explain this? why is it that after 54 years of so-called global warming the amount of ice in the arctic ocean has increased?

[Anonymous No.15990439]

>>15990438
What are global warming enthusiasts? People who enjoy global warming? Oil companies?

[Anonymous No.15990448]

>>15990420
There is our daily Tony Heller repost. Didn't even bother to change the filename.
And here's the daily reminder that Tony Heller is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

[Anonymous No.15990449]

>>15990438
Easy. Equatorial regions are warming faster than the poles are cooling. By so much that everywhere will be a desert by 2050. Understand?

[Anonymous No.15990450]

>>15990448
>funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Can you be any more specific? Also, is there anything wrong with the claim made? You're attempting to poison the well instead of refuting a simple argument based on governments own data. Why?

[Anonymous No.15990476]

>>15990450
https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/

[Anonymous No.15990491]

>>15990420
Maybe they did fraudulently change it to suit some narrative. But you know that when new data is collected about things that happened in the past we have to update our existing past data if suffered are discovered. This happens all the time. Some place will do some big new study that shows our original understanding was wrong and then we incorporate that new data into the models and charts etc to reflect those changes

[Anonymous No.15990492]

>>15990420
Maybe they did fraudulently change it to suit some narrative. But you know that when new data is collected about things that happened in the past we have to update our existing past data if differences are discovered. This happens all the time. Some place will do some big new study that shows our original understanding was wrong and then we incorporate that new data into the models and charts etc to reflect those changes

[Anonymous No.15990499]

>>15990476
I already read that between the time I read your post and you googled that without properly vetting it. All it says is he was in an email chain with multiple climate change skeptics (17 listed), and links to another article about said email. The linked article states that "many" of the people on the email chain had ties to tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries. Nowhere does it claim Tony/Steve has any of those ties. Either you knew he didn't and lied, or you regurgitated information you've seen before without vetting it, or you truly read that link and its associated citations and didn't understand it. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.15990508]

>>15990499
It gives many more examples. Are you too lazy to look into that or are you lying?
>Tony Heller moderated a discussion panel sponsored by the CO2 Coalition [Marshall institute, i.e. Exxon-Mobil]
>Steven Goddard is a climate science denier, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat [funded by the Heartland institute, i.e. Koch brothers]
Just open your eyes.

[Anonymous No.15990516]

>>15990508
The oil companies that currently fund green energy research, to rake in huge government subsidies? Those oil companies?

[Anonymous No.15990518]

>>15990516
If you think that objective, verifiable facts are schizophrenia, then you might be in need of medication.

[Anonymous No.15990520]

>>15990508
Let's apply your reasoning to 4chan. jannies who moderate 4channel FOR FREE are under the payroll of Hiro? Since both you and I regularly contribute to posts on 4chan, we're under the payroll of Hiro? I don't get paid to post here. Do you?

[Anonymous No.15990524]

>>15990520
What makes you think that Heller does all that work for free?

[Anonymous No.15990526]

>>15990524
He's an electrical engineer you dunce. He's extremely busy with his six figures job. He doesn't need the money. I do, however question why you would do all this shilling for free on 4chan. It's more likely you're under a pay roll than Tony is.

[Anonymous No.15990527]

>>15990518
You're the one with the conspiracy theory that ignores the fact these EEEEEVVILLLL oil companies as we speak agree with the proposition that humans are altering the climate and that they should pursue green energy for long term economic viability.
And fat government checks, but what's a little cash between cronies, right?

[Anonymous No.15990528]

>>15990526
>He's extremely busy with his six figures job
Let me guys, his job goes to another school in Canada?
The guy posts several blog posts per day, makes almost daily YouTube videos, is quite active on Twitter and other social media. What six-figure job allows you to be this prolific on the side?

[Anonymous No.15990529]

>>15990448
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/tony-heller/
seems a good fellow to me

[Anonymous No.15990530]

>>15990529
https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/

[Anonymous No.15990536]

>>15990530
what does that have to do with his cv

[Anonymous No.15990578]

>>15990536
What does his CV have to do with what hes paid to say?

>>15990527
It's entirely self consistent for oil companies to invest in the future they know objectively to be correct while trying to convince the public that it's not happening because both of those activities make them money. CEO of mickey d's doesn't eat in his own restaurants, doesn't mean he doesn't want you to do so.

[Anonymous No.15990582]

>>15990578
>CEO of mickey d's doesn't eat in his own restaurants
Proof?

[Anonymous No.15990617]

>>15990527
If the oil industry didn't know global warming was real, they wouldn't feel the need to spend money on propagandists like Heller or Watts.

[Anonymous No.15990635]

>>15990420

[Anonymous No.15990638]

>>15990420
That really fails as Here tried to make it clearer to understand
png

[Anonymous No.15990650]

>>15990635
kek

[Anonymous No.15990660]

>km^6
guy didn't even bother faking his graph right

[Anonymous No.15990672]

>>15990660
Kek busted

[Anonymous No.15990686]

>>15990638
>>15990660
Lmao I'm all for faking data to spread disinformation here; I've done it multiple times because fuxk the ivory tower. At least dot your i's and cross your t's to avoid getting absolutely blown the fuck out like this. Well done.

[Anonymous No.15990694]

>>15990660
lmao chuds BTFO

[Anonymous No.15990697]

>>15990660

[Anonymous No.15990804]

>>15990635

[Anonymous No.15990833]

>>15990660
Rare climate science W

[Anonymous No.15990856]

>>15990804
You look like this?

[Anonymous No.15990896]

>>15990617

[Anonymous No.15990984]

>>15990660
meaningless
find the actual paper and the actual source graph

[Anonymous No.15990986]

>>15990984
oh, this is the same paper as the ridiculous hockey stick graph

[Anonymous No.15991134]

>>15990984
I actually did try that, couldn't find either. Not saying they don't exist, just saying that just by writing ICPP with big letters in paint isn't actually linking the source.

[Anonymous No.15991746]

>>15990986

[Anonymous No.15991753]

>>15991746
Why are you conflating Europe temp reconstruction with global temperatures?

[Anonymous No.15991784]

>>15990528
consulting

[Anonymous No.15991794]

>>15991784
He "consults" Exxon-mobil for a flat rate? And let me guess, if he were to quit his blog and YouTube channel, they'd end the contract?

[Anonymous No.15991911]

>>15991794
>attacking the source because you can't attack the central point of the argument
pretty much admitting he is right

[Anonymous No.15991914]

>>15991911
The graph is just fake though, the fact that it's made by an oil shill is just icing on the cake

[Anonymous No.15992052]

[Anonymous No.15992952]

>>15992052
Honestly I agree with him, but that's because both sides of the uniparty red and blue are legitimately evil and both need sacrificing to the tree of liberty

[Anonymous No.15993079]

>>15990896
why did jannie move that thread to /b/? it was a perfectly good thread about science

[Anonymous No.15994135]

[Anonymous No.15994845]

>>15990420
They've altered the historical temperature records and the historical polar ice records, and the historical sea level records, so its safe to assume that they're also altering all other significant historical records related to this issue, which includes the historical record of atmospheric CO2 levels. Odds are better than even that there is no more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was in 1800

[Anonymous No.15994866]

>>15990449
They used to say the poles were warming 2x as fast. This is too much of a joke science.

[Anonymous No.15995939]

>>15994866
Its not science

[Anonymous No.15996410]

>>15994866
Who?

[Anonymous No.15996417]

>>15991911
So Mann's results are correct because people attack him instead?
>>15992052
>>15991746

Further, you seem to think that pointing out that data which is claimed to represent one thing doesn't match with other datasets of that same thing just proves that the first dataset is correct and all the rest are wrong.

>>15990420
Altered metric claimed as data manipulation.
>>15990635
Climate of Europe being claimed as global climate.
>>15991746
Climate of Europe being compared to global climate to assert global climate is wrong.

Stop buying into retard-tier propaganda paid for by oil companies.

[Anonymous No.15996889]

>>15996417
projection
global warming is energy company propaganda, thats why occidental petroleum's ownership is leading the global warming propaganda campaign

[Anonymous No.15997639]

>>15996889
>projection
I don't think you know what that means. You should try doing something other than making baseless claims.

[Anonymous No.15997641]

>>15990896
Good screencap, very worth reading

[Anonymous No.15998112]

>>15994845
Sounds like communism but now everything is digital

[Anonymous No.15998462]

>>15998112
that makes altering records easier

[Anonymous No.15999014]

>>15990420
Not only do they make the past seem cooler to create the illusion of global warming, they also exaggerate and lie about how warm the present is whenever possible

[Anonymous No.16000403]

>>15992952

[Anonymous No.16000457]

>>15994845
>dude gas concentration measurements are a conspiracy
Flat earth tier argument

[Anonymous No.16000461]

>>16000457
>energy corporations spend millions to convince people that climate change isn't happening!
>please ignore those same energy corporations spend billions in green energy investments
>also ignore all of the subsidies provided to the government that wouldn't exist if there wasn't a world ending emergency
>The sky is falling! Evil People just want you to remain ignorant!
Pseudoscientific argument. Please provide accurate climate models that did not need to be abandoned later when the science "evolved".

[Anonymous No.16000615]

>>16000461
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16000617]

>>15996889
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.16000622]

>>16000403
You're right. Everyone who believes this should boycott the vote. It doesn't matter who gets elected anyway, amirite?

[Anonymous No.16000664]

>>16000615
I'm sorry. Have you provided an accurate climate model yet?

[Anonymous No.16000684]

>>16000664
Define accurate after you've taken your meds.

[Anonymous No.16000688]

>>16000684
"Accurate" meaning "falsifiable and does not need to be revised every few years because it turns out its predictions were wrong but don't worry the science has evolved and here is new model, please ignore old model, it's no pseudoscience we promise".

But you can't do that because you fuckers are worse than UFO religions.

[Anonymous No.16000699]

>>16000688
>falsifiable
Are any of the models not falsifiable? Predictions are by definition falsifiable.
>does not need to be revised every few years because it turns out its predictions were wrong
So, what do you mean by wrong? Let's say you have a predictor for a quantity x. Your prediction is 13753.7, but the true value turns out to be 13753.8. Was your prediction wrong? Is a model that's "learning", i.e. incorporating past predictions and observations bad because it's constantly being revised? What's your proposed alternative?

[Anonymous No.16000703]

>>16000699
>Are any of the models not falsifiable? Predictions are by definition falsifiable.
They're not falsifiable because failed predictions are ignored and only the latest models are considered to be the only models that have ever existed.
This is like saying that a doomsayer's prediction of the world ending in 2012 is falsifiable despite the prediction failing and the doomsayer saying that he got the date wrong and the 'real' 2012 is in 2022. Oh wait, 2032. This time, for sure.

[Anonymous No.16000706]

>>15993079
becoming political is not /sci/ related
>>15997641
not really

If you can't see that "personal profit above all" is killing society, and the idea of employee-staked companies is a good move to spread wealth, you've got some thinking to do.

[Anonymous No.16000717]

>>16000703
So you're saying that no model is falsified because a claim on a sign at a tourist's site was proven false? Please explain to the rest of the class what you think "falsifiable" means.

[Anonymous No.16000723]

>>16000717
>IGNORE THE PART ABOUT 'COMPUTER MODELS', IT'S A TOURIST SIGN! NOBODY ACTUALLY SAID IT! AND IF THEY DID, IT WAS NOBODY SERIOUS! JUST THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN FUCKING SCIENTISTS!

[Anonymous No.16000727]

>>16000717
>>16000723
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/53/2/131/254976
This not good enough for you?
They changed the date, of course. History is always being rewritten, good thing we have photo evidence. And by 2030, they'll change the date again. And again. And again.
And you'll sit here demanding proof.

[Anonymous No.16000739]

The Truth About Climate Change
https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.

[Anonymous No.16000741]

>>16000723
I can say that computer models tell me that you're a faggot. Do you treat this as a scientific disvovery as well?

[Anonymous No.16001941]

>>16000703

[Anonymous No.16002665]

>>16000703
How do people buy into this shit?

[Anonymous No.16004120]

>>16002665
total losers who have nothing going for them fantasize about becoming relevant and respected, so they're prone to savior complex fantasies and the global warming hoax plays on that aspect of their personality perfectly as it was intended to when the scam was initially designed

[Anonymous No.16005335]

[Anonymous No.16006008]

>>15990530
>desmog.com
Political propaganda outlet run by a former Huffington Post journalist, not a valid source of scientific information.

[Anonymous No.16006018]

>>16006008
>it’s a guy I don’t like
Wow, good argument.

[Anonymous No.16006191]

>>16006018
Climate change deniers
>it’s a guy I don’t like
>Wow, good argument.

Also climate change deniers
>The government is lying because Al Gore owns a company!

[Anonymous No.16006390]

>>15990420
they swapped the two and the six, why?

[Anonymous No.16006905]

>>15990420
If global warming is real then how come there was less sea ice in 1970 than there is now?

[Anonymous No.16006938]

>>16006905
How much less is there now than in 1970?

[Anonymous No.16007627]

>>16006938
a lot less according to the data in OP

[Anonymous No.16007630]

>>16006905
It's definitely not part of a long term trend.

[Anonymous No.16007636]

>>16007627
I don't know what the unit [math]\mathrm{km}^6[/math] describes, but it's surely not a reasonable quantity.

[Anonymous No.16008992]

>>16007636
if you're too dumb to understand scientific notation then you shouldn't be posting on this board

[Anonymous No.16009001]

>>15990449
It's okay because the world will be underwater by the year 2012

[Anonymous No.16009825]

>>15990449
warmth causes rain tho, antarctica has the lowest precipitation rate of anywhere on the planet

[Anonymous No.16009897]

>>16008992
Lol ironic.

[Anonymous No.16011478]

>>16009825
The rainiest place in the world is López de Micay in Columbia at 3ºN

[Anonymous No.16012179]

>>15990420
The wouldn't need to fake the data if global warming was real.

[Anonymous No.16012229]

>>16000741
Undisputed and true.

[Anonymous No.16012414]

>>15990638
>transdimensional icecaps

[Anonymous No.16013380]

>>16009897
you're too dumb to understand scientific notation, you shouldn't be posting on this board

[Anonymous No.16013457]

>>16013380
Explain it then. Why change the metric completely and then assert that the data is false because it doesn't match the new metric? I eagerly await whatever mental abortion you come up with.

[Anonymous No.16014666]

[Anonymous No.16014671]

>>16014666
t. retard

[Anonymous No.16014706]

>>16014666
If only we'd kill incels

[Anonymous No.16014935]

Why hasn't anyone simply compared the source documents from the reports?
I found one of them in less than a minute.

When did /sci/ become this lazy?

[Anonymous No.16015940]

>>16014935
Nobody needs to. It's very clear how the metric was altered to make it seem like there's a discrepancy. They didn't even change the units afterwards.

[Anonymous No.16016478]

>>15999014
Okay, I've seen enough of these placements for it to be clear they're doing this on purpose. I'm supposed to believe they all just "accidentally" placed them behind air conditioners and raised the pole height to be closer to an asphalt shingle roof?

[Anonymous No.16016484]

>>16016478
It doesn't matter. Urban heat island effects are controlled for and every station shows the same upward trend. If the issue were just that some stations read hotter than others then you'd see a flat line, not a line with a positive slope.

[Anonymous No.16016487]

>>16016484
Don't try to bullshit me. I'm a scientist. I know the tricks your false gods play with statistics and data to get the results they want.

[Anonymous No.16016488]

>>15990449
LMAO, every fucking year you morons say something different.

[Anonymous No.16016492]

>>16016487
No, you're not, and you never will be.

[Anonymous No.16016495]

>>16016478
They don't want to be cancelled by an angry mob if they fail to report higher temperatures to the climate commissar.

[Anonymous No.16016498]

>>16016487
YWNBAS

[Anonymous No.16016501]

>>16014666
Sacrifice all woke politicians to the Sun and global warming will vanish into nothing. Is simple as that.

[Anonymous No.16016522]

>>16000615

[Anonymous No.16016546]

>>16016488
snoop quit weed, endorsed trump and is now promoting healthy living, his next album of going to be christian gospel

[Anonymous No.16017120]

>>16016546
Nice to see something positive from him for a change.

[Anonymous No.16018394]

>>16004120
Same reason they self insert as MC in marve movies

[Anonymous No.16018397]

>>16016488
Actually, it's worse. They say the same things and nothing ever changes.

[Anonymous No.16018786]

>>16018397
they modify their lies depending on whatever recent circumstances occurred. the fact that they have to do that demonstrates their inability to predict the future which in turn proves that their claimed knowledge of future climatic activity is a lie

[Anonymous No.16019730]

>>16018786
>its cold = global warming
>its hot = global warming
>hurricanes = global warming
>no hurricanes = global warming
>drought = global warming
>floods = global warming
>average rainfall = global warming
>day ends in y = global warming

[Anonymous No.16019733]

>>16018397
>>16018786
>>16019730
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.16020252]

>>16019733
>imagine being so mean

[Anonymous No.16020270]

>>16020252
I don't give a shit about your feelings.

[Anonymous No.16020322]

>>16020270
incel alert

[Anonymous No.16021283]

>>16019730
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap

[Anonymous No.16021287]

>>16021283
>Kafkatrap

[Anonymous No.16021459]

>>16019730
>>16021283

[Anonymous No.16021478]

>>16021283
Who is paying you, big oil or Trump?

[Anonymous No.16021553]

>>16021478
Do you ask this of scientists openly lying about shit generally or just when it threatens the democrat party narratives?

[Anonymous No.16021598]

>>16019730
>>16021283
>>16021459
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16021646]

>>16021598
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.16021672]

>>16021553
Scientists by definition cannot lie. If they did, they're not real scientists.

[Anonymous No.16022276]

>>16021646
You need to accept your meds.

[Anonymous No.16022634]

>>16021672

[Anonymous No.16023847]

>>16021478
go to >>>/pol/ if you want to discuss politics

[Anonymous No.16024447]

>>16017120
he has a lot to atone for after decades of getting rich by shilling degeneracy on his own people. good luck to him

[Anonymous No.16024459]

>>16023847
Big oil, then.

[Anonymous No.16025750]

>>15990420

[Anonymous No.16026864]

>>16024459
thats right the whole world is conspiring to come and troll you on the slowest board on 4chan, thats what they spend time strategizing about when they meet up in switzerland

[Anonymous No.16028421]

>>15990526

[bodhi No.16028430]

>>15992952
based

[Anonymous No.16028727]

>>16028421
Funny how the U.N. isn't policing american elections to make sure shenanigans aren't occurring like they do in other third world countries.

[Anonymous No.16028730]

>>16028727
You're actually wrong, the UN is going to have election monitors in many Republican states after accusations of racially motivated suppression.

[Anonymous No.16029161]

>>16028730
I'll believe it when I see it. The mid satan historically has banned UN observers at elections because that lets the dems steal elections like they did for the "greatest president of all time".

[Anonymous No.16029187]

>>15990660
fucking this, lmao wtf.

[Anonymous No.16029645]

>>16029187
>i can't read scientific notation

[Anonymous No.16030445]

>>16029645
You keep confidently repeating this garbage but "km^6" isn't the correct notation, you moron. It doesn't even match the notation in the first graph it's being compared to. It's pretty obvious what happened too: the imbecile who fabricated this graph just accidentally switched up the two exponents when fabricating the second graph. No idea why he just didn't bother copy-pasting the title, kek.

[Anonymous No.16030492]

>>15990448
>Tony Heller is funded by the fossil fuel industry.
classic ad hominem. who do you expect to uncover the cheating, Greta the Terrible?

[Anonymous No.16030495]

>>15990439
The faster the arctic becomes ice free the faster we get 20% increased shipping efficiencies from China to Europe, like imagine having a real economic boom at like 12% interest rates

[Anonymous No.16031567]

>>16030492
Thats the only thing they ever have to say about Tony, they can never dispute any of his scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.16032511]

>>15990420
Wasnt it like another ice age being the thing they screamed about as climate change in the 60s and 70s?

[Anonymous No.16032721]

>>16031567
>scientific evidence

[Anonymous No.16033509]

>>16032511

[Anonymous No.16034425]

>>16033509
the science has changed

[Anonymous No.16034939]

>>16030445
>i can't read scientific notation

[Anonymous No.16035205]

>>16034939
Way to out yourself, pseud.

[Anonymous No.16036029]

>>15990438
>why is it that after 54 years of so-called global warming the amount of ice in the arctic ocean has increased?
Because the next ice age is starting

[Anonymous No.16036463]

>>15990476
https://www.desmog.com/about/
>Our Team
>Brendan DeMelle
>Brendan is Executive Director of DeSmog. He is also a freelance writer and researcher specializing in media, politics, climate change and energy. His work has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Grist, The Washington Times and other outlets.

Organization run by a professional propagandist with no scientific education past high school

[Anonymous No.16036709]

>>16036463
Ironic considering Tony Heller's "qualifications"

[Anonymous No.16037669]

>>16036029
earth's climate has been consistently cooling for the past several decades

[Anonymous No.16037782]

>>15990448
I fail to understand how any of this matters. Is he wrong? I care little who funds such things if the conclusions are correct. If there truly is an inconsistency we must question why.

Can confirm the 1990 graph exists.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

PDF page 272, print page 224

A possible point of contention is that the 1990 graph picture in the gif is northern hemisphere only. Sothern hemisphere graph is depicted in the report as well.

I cant locate the same graph in a 2001 report, I think I cant find the correct pdf, the one I have has fewer pages than I would expect. It could be that the OP is correct, or it could be that the 2001 report graph uses the Sothern hemisphere version or that the 2001 report consolidates northern and Sothern hemisphere datasets. Or it could be a total fabrication, though I am inclined not to think this likely.

Attached is a png extracted from the scan tif used to make the pdf. It may be the highest fidelity version of this graph on the neterwebs.

[Anonymous No.16037802]

>>16037782
Got it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

PDF page 136 print page 125

Both graphs depict artic ice levels. The 2001 paper goes into more depth about the data sources. Would be nice to collect that raw data ourselves to see what if any funny business was played. If the 1990 paper and 2001 paper each used the best reasonably available data at the time it is possible the discrepancy could be from the differing datasets with no ill intent.

Regardless, they don't just throw away this kind of data, it's hard to collect and is well preserved. Not like it's Moon landing telemetry recordings or something useless to posterity like that.

[Anonymous No.16037807]

>>15990660
>>15990672
>>15990686
>>15990694
>>15990697
>>15990984
>>15990986
>>15991134
>>16029187


>Sea-ice extent anomaly (10^2 × km^6)
Is in the original full IPPC report found here

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

PDF page 136

If this is in error the error is the IPPC's not whoever is posting these images.

[Anonymous No.16037980]

>>15990438
>global south intellectual never heard of the nothern passage

[Anonymous No.16039358]

[Anonymous No.16040093]

>>16039358
its now 11 year later, how come the arctic isn't ice free yet?

[Anonymous No.16041132]

>>15990420
bump

[Anonymous No.16041577]

>>15990438
oy vey stop noticing goy

[Anonymous No.16041859]

>>16040093
The elites don’t want you to know this but the ice at the artic is free, you can take them home I have 458 ice.

[Anonymous No.16041892]

>>16037807
So OP was telling the truth after all...

[Anonymous No.16041949]

>>16041892
Yes, the discrepancy is real. Weather it's simply due to different datasets that do not agree with one another or due to a nefarious plot is unknown.

[Anonymous No.16043156]

>>16041949

[Anonymous No.16043744]

>>16033509
>Ice age doomsayers
theres nothing wrong with an ice age. happens all the time, the last one didn't wipe out humanity and neither will the next. ice ages aren't even all that cold, only about 8º cooler than normal.

[Anonymous No.16043747]

>>16043744
the ice age wouldn't but the global conflicts that would arise over competition for dwindling resources just might. That wasn't something our ice age relatives had to worry about

[Anonymous No.16044829]

>>16043747
what dwindling resources?

[Anonymous No.16045568]

>>16044829
Precioius IQ points.

[Anonymous No.16045654]

>>16005335
another gem from 'toss

[Anonymous No.16045765]

>>16000457
>>dude gas concentration measurements are a conspiracy
People calibrating smoke detectors i know had measured the same,so what?

[Anonymous No.16046509]

Hellen Keller ahh thread

[Anonymous No.16046516]

>>16037807
Global warming hysterics will no doubt tell you that the IPCC's old data is retarded while also claiming that the same organization is infallible when it claims global warming is real.

[Anonymous No.16047555]

>>15990439
Literally Russia.

[Anonymous No.16047587]

>>15990449
That's nice. Socialism still isn't the answer though.
Free market capitalism is.

[Anonymous No.16047589]

>>15990448
>funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Climate change alarmism is funded by the government to take away freedom.

[Anonymous No.16047598]

>>16047589

True

[Anonymous No.16048188]

>>16047589

[Anonymous No.16049366]

>>16037669
For the past 4000 years

[Anonymous No.16049795]

>>16000617
it was proved in >>15990896

[Anonymous No.16050870]

>>15990438
>more polar sea ice now
proof of global warming

[Anonymous No.16052188]

>>16036029

[Anonymous No.16053572]

>>16047589
you can try to blame some other groups, but its pretty clear that scientists are extremely eager to comply and participate in that process

[Anonymous No.16054258]

>>16037802
>>16037782
Uh? Climate sisters?

[Anonymous No.16055230]

>>16054258
if people were truly concerned about global warming they would be happy to find out that arctic ice has increased during the past several decades.
someone who gets upset about hearing that want global warming to be true, they don't want to prevent it

[Anonymous No.16055348]

>>15990896
>thread moved to /b/
You don't hate jannies enough

[Anonymous No.16056002]

>>16052188
So volcanoes, which emit massive amounts of CO2, cause global cooling

[Anonymous No.16056301]

>>16049795
Lol no.

[Anonymous No.16057342]

>>16056002
how do global warming believers explain this

[Anonymous No.16057505]

>>16056002
This is actually because of all the sulfur that volcanoes produce, which creates clouds that reflect sunlight back into space thus cooling the planet. It was believed industrial pollution would do the same, as if sunlight is reflected by smog then it ends up cooling things. This line of thinking vanished after the 70's with various pollution and environmental standards.

Global warming fags will try to tell you this was some minority opinion, but it's basic science.

[Anonymous No.16058352]

[Anonymous No.16059561]

>>15990439
(((you)))

[Anonymous No.16059802]

The 1990 IPCC report used a lot of old and less reliable data. When newer data became available that better showed the global warming signal, climate skeptics became irate because they didn't like it.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.16060991]

>>16059802
roy spencer is just another ZOG shill from NASA

[Anonymous No.16061938]

>>16060991
>vanity website
cringe

[Anonymous No.16062488]

>>16061938
NASA morons are extremely vain people, thats why they devote their lives to getting a five figure salary prestige job and condemning themselves to terminal poverty for the sake of being able to brag about being a scyentist.

[Anonymous No.16063085]

>>16060991
He's a climate change skeptic and a creationist.

[Anonymous No.16063175]

>>16059802
>Pic unrelated.
Zoom out. 160°C is the span shill.

[Anonymous No.16063893]

>>16063085

[Anonymous No.16064722]

>>16058352
measured vs. adjusted always "adjusts" to warmer temps in the present and cooler temps in the past. if the adjustments were legitimate then they'd go the other way half the time

[Anonymous No.16064898]

>>16064722
>I don't like the results so they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.16065132]

>>16037807
damn

[Anonymous No.16065137]

>>16064898
>>I don't like the results so they're wrong.
That's not a good enough reason to adjust the data.

[Anonymous No.16065138]

>>16030495
yeah, then once half the world is underwater, it will really open up new shipping routes!!!

[Anonymous No.16065685]

>>16065132
thats the adjusted data
picrel is made from the raws

[Anonymous No.16066930]

>>16065685
>no change in arctic sea ice extent in over 20 years
is this global warming?

[Anonymous No.16067375]

>>16065685

[Anonymous No.16067612]

>>16057342
They can't, they'll post trash like >>16057505 and then turn right around and claim volcanoes caused global warming which lead to the permian–triassic extinction. Volcanoes cause global cooling when its convenient for them to say that and they cause global warming when thats the argument they want to make. They know nobody has a time machine to go back and actually see what conditions were like millions of years ago so they know they can always make both arguments and never be disproved.

[Anonymous No.16067656]

>>16065685
>picrel is made from the raws
What sashimi-eating faggot world think that raw is better? I'm experimental particle physics. Good luck trying to deduce anything from my raw files.

[Anonymous No.16068698]

>>16067656
>I'm experimental particle physics.
no you aren't, you're a sperg, you can't even communicate correctly

[Anonymous No.16068730]

>>16067612
It really comes down to what sort of chemicals that the volcano is spewing out. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, methane is a greenhouse gas, sulfur and dust generate cloud albedo. But it's not just one thing, it's all of these things; and it happens as a natural process on an almost constant basis so it really is just a "correlation = causation" argument.
Really any climate effects from a major volcano eruption would be extreme but temporary, see the year without a summer.

[Anonymous No.16068736]

>>16068730
>CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
no it isn't, mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
mars has no measurable greenhouse effect regardless the fact that mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than earth does

[Anonymous No.16068747]

>>16068736
Mars has too thin an atmosphere. Don't die on this hill. Earth's atmosphere is dominated by other greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, such as methane and water vapor, that Mars lacks so it's not a good case study.

[Anonymous No.16070001]

>>16068747
>Mars has too thin an atmosphere.
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.16071167]

>>16070001
The atmosphere of Mars can't produce a greenhouse effect because CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.16073017]

>>16071167
tsmt this

[Anonymous No.16073736]

>>16070001
Mars' atmosphere isn't even all that thin, Mars' low atmospheric pressure is as much a function of Mars' weak gravity as it is of a thin atmosphere.
Mars' atmosphere is very comparable to Earth, Mars has similar weather systems, similar cloud formation and similar precipitation. And Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect despite massive amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere

[Anonymous No.16073759]

>>16068736
>>16073736
It's almost like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just not a very good one. I've already told you that water vapor and methane on Earth help things along significantly, which Mars does not have because its atmosphere has been stripped away by solar winds due to a lack of magnetic field. CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the easiest thing to prove in the world. You take a jar, fill it with CO2, expose it to sunlight, and wow it starts to heat up faster than a jar filled with regular air. The issue is how much of an impact it has on Earth's atmosphere, where CO2 doesn't even represent 1% and is constantly soaked up by the biosphere that is hungry like nothing else for it.

If you continue this retarded argument, I can only assume you to be trying to make other people look retarded.

[Anonymous No.16073786]

>>16073759
>where CO2 doesn't even represent 1%
You're smarter than this

[Anonymous No.16076584]

>>15990448

The very notion of biotic oil, of implicit scarcity, is fabricated and presumably founded by the fossil fuel industry.

[Anonymous No.16077833]

>>16076584
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16078204]

>>16076584
Yes, the details are in >>15990896

[Anonymous No.16078830]

[Anonymous No.16079850]

>>16078830
lololololololol

[Anonymous No.16079920]

>>15990492
This is exactly correct and I notice everyone ignored it.

OP is pretending climate change isn't happening by attacking a single data point when he's easily provably wrong using multiple points of information.

https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-has-arctic-ice-declined-and-how-does-compare-past-periods-earths-history

https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2023/sea-ice-2023/

But go ahead and believe his misleading garbage infographic posted by a fossil fuel industry shill.

[Anonymous No.16080593]

>>16079920
You've summarised /sci/ in 2024

[Anonymous No.16080645]

>>15990420

[Anonymous No.16081247]

>>16080645
Is that just a lazy bump?

[Anonymous No.16081476]

>>16081247
Climate change deniers like to ignore actual rebuttals, jerk each other off, and keep these threads bumped for as long as possible so they can feel like they've won.

[Anonymous No.16081778]

>>16079920
Ah, I see. Still no pictures of sea level rise

[Anonymous No.16082093]

>>16079920
>source: nasa
same organization says that women have penises

[Anonymous No.16082100]

>>16073786
Are you? CO2 is a trace gas.
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere
So as I said, CO2 does not even represent 1% of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.16082110]

>>16082100
CO2 on Mars is over 90% of the atmosphere and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect

[Anonymous No.16082744]

>>16081778
There are none

[Anonymous No.16083561]

[Anonymous No.16083771]

sea level is falling

[Anonymous No.16084566]

>>16083771
>sea level is falling
because more water is being sequestered in arctic and antarctic ice sheets

[Anonymous No.16085798]

>>16055348

[Anonymous No.16086264]

>>16084566
thats incredible ice growth between 1984 & 2012.

[Anonymous No.16086411]

>>15990448
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16087163]

>>16086264
How could that have happened if global warming is real?

[Anonymous No.16087243]

>>16087163
How are two single data points possible in an overall trend????

[Anonymous No.16087408]

>>16087243
Why is there so much more ice now than in the 1980s if global warming is real? You claim to be concerned about the dangers of global warming, so you should be happy to see that its not happening, unless you have an ulterior motive for claim to be concerned about the dangers of global warming.
I sure hope you're not dishonestly claiming to be concerned about global warming as a means of forwarding some other hidden agenda

[Anonymous No.16088810]

>>16082100

[Anonymous No.16089057]

>>15990420
They wouldn't have to adjust the raw data to get the results they want if global warming was real

[Anonymous No.16089058]

>>16088810
Missing a few zeros. The true number is 0.035%.

[Anonymous No.16090042]

>>16089057
Right, if global warming was true then the raw data would necessarily reflect that

[Anonymous No.16090848]

Can global warming believers tell me why 2000-5000ppm CO2 during the precambrian explosion (amongst many other time periods during earth's recent biological history) didn't turn Earth in venus nor kill all life nor even most or some life, but now 400ppm today will kill us all in less than a hundred years?

[Anonymous No.16091811]

>>16090848
If 2000-5000ppm CO2 resulted in the precambrian explosion then why shouldn't we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the current era will also make nature prosper and proliferate similarly?

[Anonymous No.16093185]

>>16091811
there isn't any rational reason to think but here is a massive propaganda campaign against it so people who can't think for themselves are anti-CO2

[Anonymous No.16094087]

>>16091811
>>16093185
You know the precambrian explosion was the result of mass extinction, right? Is was a mass speciation event where the handful of surviving species had no predators and no competition in any ecological niche. Carbon dioxide didn't cause the precambrian explosion. It caused rapid climate change which caused a mass extinction. Modern global warming is happening faster than that.

[Anonymous No.16094090]

>>16094087
If those were actual humans, you'd make them think, but Exxon bots can't think.

[Anonymous No.16094706]

>>15990420
From my experience data corrections like these usually come from people realizing, that the measurements had some kind of systematic deviation. they then quantify that deviation once they find out it exists and try to correct the data for it.

I say from my experience, because i saw this happening in the past several times. eventually i did the unthinkable: i just contacted the people producing the data and asked what this was about. The guy simply explained they found out the data did not fit with surrounding weather stations, they searched for the cause and found the thermometer was slowly losing its liquid over the decades. then they quantified it, corrected it and suddenly, oh wonder, it fit with the surrounding weather stations.

The truth is often rather mundane. Just sad to see people are to stupid/lazy to just research this shit.

[Anonymous No.16095205]

>>16091811
The places on Earth with the highest atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are also the places with the highest density of human life

[Anonymous No.16095208]

>>16094706
This is exactly what they did. They found that the data did not fit their models, so they changed the data. It really makes sense when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.16096915]

>>16095205
that proves that CO2 is good

[Anonymous No.16097366]

>>16086264
2012 was one of the lowest ice cover years in the arctic so far this century

[Anonymous No.16098725]

>>16097366
And there was even less ice in 1984.
How would that be possible if global warming was real?

[Anonymous No.16099864]

>>15990420
they pretty much reversed the data to make it look like there wasn't less ice in 1970 than there is now

[Anonymous No.16100542]

>>16089058
that number isn't referring to percentage of the overall atmosphere

[Anonymous No.16101067]

>>16083771
Post glaciation isostatic rebound.

[Anonymous No.16101091]

>>15991746

[Anonymous No.16101320]

The early data (early 70s) used an electrically scanning microwave radiometer (ESMR), while after that it uses scanning multichannel microwave radiometer (SMMR) and special sensor microwave/imager (SSM/I) instruments, which give better data.

[Anonymous No.16102478]

why is it when data is "adjusted" it always ends up making the data fit more nicely with globohomo propaganda of one sort or another?

[Anonymous No.16103001]

>>16102478
Wasn't adjusted, older data was just crap and thus discarded.

[Anonymous No.16103006]

>>16103001
Cool. I never knew we use time machines to get better data.

[Anonymous No.16103099]

>>16103006
ESMR instrument wasn't properly polarized and was picking up all sorts of noise for directions it wasn't pointed at, that made it unusable for sea ice monitoring. The other instruments were better. Scientists tried to fix older satellite data, but it was crappy and couldn't extract the real signal even when calibrated with the better instruments. If you think that requires time machines, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.16104071]

>>16103099
>lets just change the data so it fits our theory

[Anonymous No.16104529]

>>16104071
It wasn't changed, it was discarded. Also, deniers are the ones whining how unreliable temperature records and raw data are, why are they angry that old unreliable data is removed? Then again, they were happy to use bad satellite temperature data for decades when it didn't correct properly for orbital decay and showed cooling.

[Anonymous No.16105877]

>>16104529
>lets just change the data so it fits our theory

[Anonymous No.16106789]

>>16105877
Thats how soiyence works

[Anonymous No.16106854]

“Climate change is fake” <— YOU ARE HERE

“Ok, climate change is real but it’s actually good”

“Ok, climate change isn’t good but it’s not that bad”

“Ok, climate change is bad but we can’t afford the “solutions”

“Fuck”

[Anonymous No.16106902]

>>16106854
“Climate change is real” <— YOU ARE HERE

“Ok, climate change is real but it causes both extremes of hot and cold”

“Ok, climate change is real, but our last prediction about when it was too late has been pushed forward by another ten to twenty years”

“Ok, climate change might not be real, but we need clean energy anyway also please redesign all your cities”

“Okay, it was never real, but it was a necessary lie a la Plato."

[Anonymous No.16107444]

>>16106902
nothing that you do is improving anything for anyone

[Anonymous No.16107452]

>>15990420
Dude, we have photographic evidence that the ice caps are melting. Not only that but we have changing migration patterns of plants and animals showing the arctic is getting warmer.

You act like one series of data is all we have proving climate change which is wholeheartedly stupid and the mark of a moron.

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

[Anonymous No.16107565]

>>16107444
Name one problem with fossil fuels other than climate change.
>PEAK OIL
The 70's called. They want their hysteria back.

[Anonymous No.16107593]

>>16090848
I'm not a cold blooded reptile, homo genus evolved in relatively moderate climate of pleistocene. I would prefer climate to stay as it is.

[Anonymous No.16107608]

>>15990420
I'm very disappointed. I want to poles to melt.

[Anonymous No.16108873]

>>16107608
It would be nice to see whats under all that ice in antarctica.

[Anonymous No.16109055]

>>15991746
Michael Mann sued some lying global warming denying conservative faggots for defamation over the hockey stick graph and won over a million dollars in damages.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/us-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1m-in-defamation-lawsuit

[Anonymous No.16109065]

>>16109055
>“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,”
The comparison to a child molester was what got them in trouble.

"Michael Mann is like Charles Dawson, the hockey stick graph is the piltdown man of the modern age" is not defamation.
"Michael Mann is like a child molester, the hockey stick graph is like sticking his hand down the unspoiled panties of science" is defamation.

[Anonymous No.16109081]

>>16109065
Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.”

[Anonymous No.16109925]

>>16109055
blah blah blah muh direction brain politics
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16109939]

>>15990449
The eastern seaboard will be mostly underwater by 2025

[Anonymous No.16111101]

>>16109939
The soiyentists already predicted that supposed to have happened ages ago, but it never did

[Anonymous No.16111601]

>>16108873
you would never be allow to see, ZOG would hoard anything interesting or valuable to itself

[Anonymous No.16112737]

>>16109939

[Anonymous No.16113431]

>>16105877
>>16106789

[Anonymous No.16114852]

>>16101067
If that were really the case than all of displacement caused by the rising sea floors would cause displacement of the oceans resulting in noticeable sea level rise, so where are the pictures of the rising seas that we've been promised by the global warming hoaxers for the past several decades?

[Anonymous No.16115404]

>>16101320
>which give better data.
Better by what metric?

>>16104529
>It wasn't changed, it was discarded.
retard

[Anonymous No.16116534]

>>16114852

[Anonymous No.16116564]

>>15991753
Why do use modeled data as substitute for empirical readings to get your "global" temperature?
All those medieval times south american thermometers amirite?

[Anonymous No.16116568]

>>15991794
Exxon-Mobil is not rich guys. it's a corporate platform owned by the banks forming a backbone of energy infrastructure in the bigger picture of the American industrial cartel.

It was "owned" in 1975 by Chase Manhattan, whose Chairman David Rockefeller FOUNDED the WEF and Club of Rome and sponsored Maurice Strong and later Hansen and all this climate change shit.

Professional skeptics tend to be funded by the Kochs who are like the minor league in the oil industry.

Exxon-Mobil's scientists resurrected the dead and buried greenhouse theory of Arrhenius in the 1960s looking for an excuse to regulate people like the Kochs.

[Anonymous No.16116590]

>>15991753
Any discussion about the measurable effects of a changing climate must necessarily examine some region or part of the whole. A global climate is so abstract as to be meaningless. The global climate is the gobi desert and Antarctica. It is death valley and Svalbard.
A global average is necessarily going to smooth out a lot of regional variance and inevitably MASK a lot of the natural variance in the climate that different regions will see. It's only by examining a contiguous, coherent, identifiable area that we can make some sense of how it has changed over time.

[Anonymous No.16116957]

>>16116568
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16117564]

>>16116534
>left
High tide
>right
Low tide.

[Anonymous No.16118025]

>>16117564
nice cope

[Anonymous No.16118513]

>>16067612
>volcanoes as a boogeyman that conveniently explains every climatological mystery.
i guess thats easier than learning to understand milankovitch cycles

[Anonymous No.16119319]

>>16118025
Prove him wrong.

[Anonymous No.16120053]

>>16119319
both water levels are the same, therefore the tide stages must be the same

[Anonymous No.16120487]

>>16116534
Sea level is falling in a lot of regions

[Anonymous No.16120538]

>>15990686
>I'm all for ruining this board; I've done it multiple times because I think shitting up a board on 4chan is sticking it to the mean scientists

[Anonymous No.16121735]

>>16120538
pro scientists fake data all the time, thats why the replication crisis exists to begin with. you'll never be a pro if you don't learn how to fake data

[Anonymous No.16121759]

>>16120053
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.16122933]

>>16120538
pro scientists fake data all the time, thats why the replication crisis exists to begin with. you'll never be a pro if you don't learn how to fake data

[Anonymous No.16123785]

>>16122933
>doesn't know how to falsify data to get the most popular result
NGMI

[Anonymous No.16124451]

>>16122933
>>16123785
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16124886]

>>16124451
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-023-00674-0

[Anonymous No.16125539]

>>16123785
It doesn't make a difference how you do it, if your results are what everyone wants to see they will pass peer review

[Anonymous No.16126381]

>>15990420
>current sea ice levels are far greater than they were in 1970
how do global warming shills explain this

[Anonymous No.16127647]

>>16126381

[Anonymous No.16128430]

>>15990420
science being fake and gay yet again

[Anonymous No.16129824]

>>16107565

[Anonymous No.16130751]

>>16129824
the peak oil meme actually goes back to the first decade of the 20th century. the oil industry was only started in the 1870s, so they've been shilling the peak oil meme for about 80% of their history

[Anonymous No.16132092]

>>16130751
The first oil field that was ever developed for commercial exploitation in Titusville, PA, is still producing. There is no oil field anywhere in the world that has ever run dry. Peak oil is just another big lie

[Anonymous No.16132774]

>>16132092
You can did a well anywhere on the planet and hit infinite hydrocarbon fuel if you go down 8km or so. The professionals go for easier access wells because that makes the extraction cheaper and more profitable

[Anonymous No.16132921]

>>16130751
>>16132092
>>16132774
Meds

[Anonymous No.16133951]

>>15990420
NASA wouldn't need to fake that data if global warming was real

[Anonymous No.16135167]

>>16132774
Deep wells are tricky because its so hot down there, not good for the drilling equipment, but they're past the point where they have to invent new technology to dig deep wells, so the expense isn't all that much greater than relatively shallow wells. Deepwater Horizon is 500% deeper than most of the onshore sites in Texas and it still makes a lot of money.