/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6485441]

So one of my professors claims the proof for global warming is bullshit because the temperature figures given are taken from inside cities where temperature has increased because of larger buildings concrete etc and that if you look at locations even 30 miles outside the cities the figures are much more constant. And if you look at temperature samples from northern Canada, shetland and other polar locations over the past 100 years (the region that should warm first) there is little variation.

[Anonymous No.6485449]

your professor is working on hilariously outdated information

[Anonymous No.6485455]

If I were a scientist studying climate change, who would hire me?

[Anonymous No.6485465]

yeah he is retarded. that argument is often made by deniers. data from cities has been corrected already

[Anonymous No.6485466]

>>6485441
Buddy it snowed in Toronto on april 14th.

[Anonymous No.6486855]

http://berkeleyearth.org/

[Anonymous No.6486859]

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.htm

[Anonymous No.6486995]

>>6485465
By who? Published where?

And how do you correct for cities? How can you possibly know how hot an area would be if New York City never existed?

Stop being stupid, anon.

[Anonymous No.6487122]

>>6485465

>deniers
I love how you call me that.
It has the same ring to it as "infedel" or "heretic".
Fuck your religion!

[Anonymous No.6487127]

>>6485441

The U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) shows a growing divergence between raw temps and urban temps increasing to about 0.6 degrees centigrade. See attached. However NOAA urban adjustments are about 0.1 degrees centigrade.

Data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_daily/
NOAA urban adjustment: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

[Anonymous No.6487136]

>>6486995
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
lord I hate you for being on /sci/

[Anonymous No.6487139]

>>6485465
>made by deniers
This is why I fucking hate the whole 'global warming' movement; anybody who is a skeptic is instantly labelled A DENIER. Wasn't this the same shit that happened to people who opposed the church's view that the earth was round?

Also, OP, the main reason for skepticism is the fact that there's been no net global temperature change since 1998, as has been cited in hundreds of studies. Hell, even the IPCC admitted it in their recent assessment report. It's the primary reason I'm a skeptic; the whole thing seems to be (unsurprisingly) primarily for the financial gain of politicians who promote it.

[Anonymous No.6487150]

>>6487136

>using wikipedia as scource on a highly politicised topic

[Anonymous No.6487154]

>>6487150
>discussing 'a highly politicized topic' off of /pol/

fuck off you stupid little corporate fascist.

[Anonymous No.6487162]

>>6487160
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6487160]

>>6487154

17yo vegetarian detected.
Tell us more about you politicval wisdom!

[Anonymous No.6487191]

>>6487139

Judging by the graph here,
>>6487127
it looks like the cities account for 0.6 - 0.1 = 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming. Considering that total warming for about a century is about 0.9 degrees Celsius, that a lot!

[Anonymous No.6487478]

>>6487127
>>6487191

Did you ever consider that people might be disagreeing with you because you're stupid?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#COMPARE

>>6487139

>Wasn't this the same shit that happened to people who opposed the church's view that the earth was round?

This is most certainly not the metaphor you want to invoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Christian_world

[Anonymous No.6487511]

>>6485449
Yea but there is still no true proof that any climate change is caused by humans.

In fact data shows that it is not caused by humans.

[Anonymous No.6487689]

>>6487478
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#COMPARE

Wow! I provide data and you say "stupid!" Great argument.

Yeah, I looked at the web page. It says there is urban correcting. Doesn't say how much. I gave a ref showing its about 0.1 degrees...

Clearly, carefully referenced data just doesn't do it for you, does it? When confronted with facts, how can you defend your beliefs?

Oh yeah, scream "stupid!"

Good luck with your cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.6487735]

>>6485441
You really fucking think the scientists wouldn't correct for that kind of simple error? Do you really think it's common knowledge to everyone but the goddamn people studying earth temperatures?

[Anonymous No.6487759]

>>6487735

They don't properly correct for it, as their own data and documentation show.

>>6487127

[Anonymous No.6487768]

Anthropocentric global warming is a lie spread by luddites who honestly believe we would be better off living in trees flinging shit at each other.

[Anonymous No.6487817]

>>6487689

>Wow! I provide data and you say "stupid!" Great argument.

That's because you're stupid, stupid.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

>Clearly, carefully referenced data just doesn't do it for you, does it? When confronted with facts, how can you defend your beliefs?

>carefully referenced data

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

>Good luck with your cognitive dissonance.

May be Michael Crichton can clone us up some new glaciers from ice preserved in amber.

[Anonymous No.6487829]

>>6485455
>he thinks they make it up for funding

actually climate study is important as shit even without global warming so they already have plenty of money dipshit

[Anonymous No.6487927]

>>6487817

Yawn.

>http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

Who cares?
I GAVE YOU THE ACTUAL DATA SOURCE!

There's something very wrong when you resort to knee jerk ad hominem ("its an evil denier therefore its false!) is all you do to "prove" something is wrong.

And yeah I looked:
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Again, no specific number provided. I showed from their own references that that the errors are not properly corrected for.

Your cognitive dissonance is awful. Sometimes something labeled "scientific" ain't. That's something that's very difficult for technical types to grasp.

So here's an explanation. What's the choice for the relatively small number of "scientists" who process global temperature data?

1. Do correct Urban Heat Island effect corrections and erase about 50% of Global Warming, thus making my job irrelevant, or
2. Do a sub-par correction and come up with a "qualitative justification" and maintain my salary and leave me able to say I'm saving the world!

[Anonymous No.6487935]

>>6487927
i mean what's really going on is that you sound like an idiot and he doesn't

[Anonymous No.6487980]

Remember, the climate change "debate" only exists in parts of Merica and a couple of cities outside who rely on coal.

[Anonymous No.6487999]

>>6487511
>Yea but there is still no true proof that any climate change is caused by humans.

cities make the temperture hotter.

No proof by humans.

ok einstien city makes it hotter.

who did dat? ohh it's ok it didn't counted cause a human made the hotter.

[Anonymous No.6488035]

>implying it isn't HAARP

/sci/ is retarded

[Anonymous No.6488071]

>>6487768
It's anthropogenic, you cousin fucking redneck.

[Anonymous No.6488178]

>>6488071
Well, technically anthropocentric global warming would be wrong since heat obviously first comes from the sun.

[Anonymous No.6488377]

>>6488071

And you wonder why people call you a climate-fanatic and zealot?

[Anonymous No.6488380]

The earth has been warming up and cooling down for hundreds of millions of years.

[Anonymous No.6488394]

>>6488035

[Anonymous No.6488396]

you should watch a document Chasing Ice. It is the most solid proof of global warming what i have seen.

[Anonymous No.6488397]

This is the direct cause of global warming
something so hideously out of our control that we may as well give up

[Anonymous No.6488414]

>>6488397
There are lots of studies of the solar influence on climate, the current trends cannot be attributed it by any known process.
The Sun is very well studied and yet we see no large changes.

[Anonymous No.6488433]

>>6485441
He's talking about the urban heat island effect.
It's real and results in false warming.

You can avoid its influence through careful quality control of stations and counteradjusting the rise. But because the temperature increase curve it shows is strongly suggestive of alarming global warming, this is not in the interest of anyone that have grant money and publishes papers

[Anonymous No.6488442]

>>6488396
>you should watch a document Chasing Ice. It is the most solid proof of global warming what i have seen.

And it's all because CO2?
Natural variability could not influence it?
Coal dust could not aggrevate the local melting of glaciers?

[Anonymous No.6488441]

>>6488397
What if we get us a sun made out of ice somehow...

[Anonymous No.6488445]

>global warming is bullshit

If so we would still be stuck in the little ice age.
I'd say enjoy the modern warm period while it lasts,
because after warming comes cooling (and soon).

[Anonymous No.6488446]

>>6488397
But it isn't the cause of what we call global warming, i.e. the increased greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.6488465]

>>6488446
>increased greenhouse effect
If so then only between 1977 and 2001.

[Anonymous No.6488468]

>>6488465
But that picture has CO2 increasing? Not that tells us everything about the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases anyway.

Also, that doesn't even read like it comes from a proper publication, so why post it? Actually don't answer, let the thread die.

[Anonymous No.6488473]

>>6488442
>Natural variability could not influence it?
We would have to observe the natural variability in order to conclude that it was influencing it to the degree of CO2, and so far we have not observed anything that matches up with temperature anywhere near as well as CO2 does.

[Anonymous No.6488479]

>>6488414

Well studied, but not by you.
WE see a lot of variance in the suns output.

The current solar cycle, for example, started years later and showed much less magnetic activity.

Wait... you are trolling, right?
Because anyone can check at SOHO for themselves...

[Anonymous No.6488482]

>>6488442
You mean that movie where an artist films melting ice?
During polar summer?
Big-fucking-whoop!

The same trick is pulled with the ozone-hole every year and hardly anybody notices.

[Anonymous No.6488600]

>>6487139
>Financial gain of the politicians who promote it
What about the other side? The Koch brothers put huge funding against proving climate change. They also happen to have a huge hand in the oil and logging industries. You think denial (or the promotion of skepticism) of climate change has nothing to do with it being damaging to big oil?

[Anonymous No.6488695]

>>6487935

Wow, call me an Idiot, huh? Does that change the data? Not in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.6488705]

>>6488600

Please provide specific, primary evidence showing that the Koch brothers give huge amounts of money to skeptical scientists.

Hint: you can't.

[Anonymous No.6488730]

>>6488414

Studies by people whose salaries are dependent on "showing" that the sun doesn't explain climate change.

Sun (time integrated) + Ocean oscillations explain things quite well.

[Anonymous No.6488745]

[Anonymous No.6488757]

>>6488745
so many fallacies in the assumptions here.

for starters, there are billions of dollars in climate study and control programs and public awareness programs from governments around the world.

or have you been living under a fucking rock the last twenty years?

[Anonymous No.6488765]

>>6488757
>there are billions of dollars in climate study

Yeah, there are billions of dollars in particle physics study too. Are subatomic particles a conspiracy? After all, a lot of jobs depend on people thinking they exist!

[Anonymous No.6488770]

>>6488765
How is that even a logical argument? Oh yeah, its NOT.

>This man is a thief. This other man is also a man, therefor he is also a thief.

[Anonymous No.6488772]

>>6488770

What?

[Anonymous No.6488777]

>>6488730
Wait, what?
"ocean oscillation" (if that means the Pacific decadal oscillation) includes the global temperature anomaly, naturally, so the graph shows that the temperature anomaly plus sun spots follows the temperature anomaly, thereby showing sun spots do not influence the temperature significantly.

[Anonymous No.6488784]

>>6488745
But the corporations and governments that are capitalizing on panic aren't stoking fear for their profits, it's just the oil companies. Because oil is evil. And capitalism. Except when you've got a (D) next to your name.

I don't deny that the global average temperature has gone up by a little over a degree over the past century and I anticipate that it will do the same over the next. I don't see that as a reason for concern because ice ages (like the one we're in and just now coming out of) are not the norm. If Manhattan gets inundated and the hipster neets drown it will be because they refused to adapt. And nothing of value will be lost.

People have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of language. How many have actually come true?

[Anonymous No.6488787]

>>6488730
>Sun (time integrated)
Is that what i think it means? Cause that would be the most retarded thing i ever heard. Please tell me that is some stupid way to refer to a smoothing algorithm or some multi-year means and they did not actually integrate all the sunspots up to a given year.
Please give a source so i can enjoy all that stupid

[Anonymous No.6488794]

>>6488730
Yeah, that's utter bullshit. that doesn't fit whatsoever. Can i have a source for that?

[Anonymous No.6488811]

>>6488772
>being this ignorant

no wonder you made that argument, anon..

[Anonymous No.6488813]

>>6488770
>How is that even a logical argument?
It very much is. Physicists would have an incentive to "invent" new reasons for particle accelerators to keep their grants going. You could equally accuse them that Higgs boson doesn't actually exist so they have some reason to justify their existence. Or dark matter and energy being utterly invented so governments buy them new telescopes and accelerators.
Saying "they get money for their work, so the product of their work must be fake" si always stupid bullshit, no matter the profession.

[Anonymous No.6488816]

i like how capitalism forces us to continuously justify our existence so that when the time comes anyone can say to anyone yeah, you're just in it for the money

[Anonymous No.6488821]

>>6488813
Well by that line of reasoning, it shouldnt bother you that oil companies invest a lot of money into their work. RIGHT?

[Anonymous No.6488824]

>>6488821
>it shouldnt bother you that oil companies invest a lot of money into their work.
I'm not. Their work is producing oil and they are very good at it and produce a lot of it and i have no reason to assume oil is a conspiracy and doesn't actually exist.

[Anonymous No.6488828]

>>6488813

Thank you. I thought the point was obvious, but apparently not to everyone...

[Anonymous No.6488837]

>>6488770

Okay Check this.

Climate study gets 1 billion Dollars.
Oil Companies hide Global W. to continue getting money, spend 1000 billion dollars (yes a thousand).

[Anonymous No.6488871]

Weather isn't climate, but circumstantial evidence indicates our sun may be entering a grand minimum of sunspot activity, not unlike the Maunder Minimum that some climatologists think caused record low winter temperatures in Northern Europe during the latter half of the 17th century.

"My opinion is that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum," said Mark Giampapa, a solar physicist at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. "I'm seeing a continuation in the decline of the sunspots' mean magnetic field strengths and a weakening of the polar magnetic fields and subsurface flows."

"If we're entering a Maunder Minimum, it could persist until the 2080s," said Giampapa, who points out that if such a minimum's primary effect is cooling, it could wreak havoc by curtailing agricultural growing seasons which, for instance, could lead to lower wheat production in breadbasket economies.

www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/01/20/sun-flatlining-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/

[Anonymous No.6488888]

>>6488757

>there are billions of dollars in climate study and control programs and public awareness programs from governments around the world.

>governments are trying to promote anthropogenic climate change so that people decide we need to stop using fossil fuels, thereby crashing the economies of the very nations they run

it's like you don't even try to think through the implications of what you post

[Anonymous No.6488920]

>>6488888
>not realizing that i am arguing against the holy purity of climate science

its like your reading comprehension is in the fucking toilet. and by 'like', i mean 'is'.

[Anonymous No.6488954]

>>6488777
>"ocean oscillation" (if that means the Pacific decadal oscillation) includes the global temperature anomaly, naturally, so the graph shows that the temperature anomaly plus sun spots follows the temperature anomaly, thereby showing sun spots do not influence the temperature significantly.

This isn't even coherent unless you're assuming that temperature anomaly, a statistical measure (not an actual physical thing!) drive the PDO and Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation.

Which is even worse. A statistic driving physical reality.

Category mistake.

[Anonymous No.6488969]

Their was a audit of weather stations across the USA and Canada, it found most of them were improperly placed and their readings would have been incorrect.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[Anonymous No.6488972]

>>6488954
>temperature anomaly, a statistical measure (not an actual physical thing!)
Are you stupid or something? The Temperature Anomaly is a physical thing as any temperature measurement. It's just a measurement how much hotter or colder any given year (or multi-year average) is compared to an arbitrary year in the past. It's maps trivially to the actual temperature measurement by just adding the reference year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Absolute_temperatures_v._anomalies
And the PDO is just the surface temperature anomaly of the pacific. Obviously, if it gets hotter everywhere it gets hotter in the pacific, so obviously, the data of the pacific temperature anomaly (which is half the world anyway) will more or less mirror the global temperature anomaly. The PDO index on the other hand, is the PDO minus the global surface anomaly, showing only the oscillation of the pacific compared to global average temperatures. I do not know which the people who made the graph used, since it is not sourced and you didn't provide any and it may well have no footing in reality whatsoever.
Also, the time-integral still sounds arcane and/or stupid, adding a temperature and a number of things together to produce a single graph line is stupid and is ripe for manipulation and anyway, i see no way that could actually produces the graph shown, see here >>6488794
So, until you provide some source or at least explain how they got to that graph i'll juts post my own graph that shows there's no correlation between sunspost and temperature that'll be just as valid as the thing you posted.

[Anonymous No.6489015]

>>6488794
An assumption of an essentially tightly contiguous causal relationship, like your graphs imply is ridiculous. No one would make such an assumption about a very complex dynamical system; unless their salary depends on making the argument "Its not the sun or the oceans, so it must be CO2 !!!!!"

[Anonymous No.6489024]

>>6488972

Oh my gosh, clearly you're too stupid to understand statistics. A temperature anomaly is a NUMBER - a statistic, to be exact. Not a physical thing. It is a short-term mean value subtracted from a long term mean value.

What you are thinking of, the physical thing; is heat.

The explanation being that changes in surface ocean heat lead alter

[Anonymous No.6489034]

>>6489024
>Oh my gosh, clearly you're too stupid to understand statistics. A temperature anomaly is a NUMBER - a statistic, to be exact. Not a physical thing. It is a short-term mean value subtracted from a long term mean value.
That's just retarded.
If i say it's 20 degrees today, was 30 degrees yesterday and say that it's 10 degrees colder today than it was yesterday those are all valid temperature measurements. A temperature anomaly is not a number, it's a temperature (It's currently about 0.6 °C. You'll notice that °C, meaning it's a temperature, with a unit and everything).
If you want to get the current global mean surface temperate you just have to add the anomaly to the average it is based on. Those two are equivalent. If, for example, the global mean surface temperature that corresponds to an anomaly of 0° C is 14 °C, then the Global mean surface temperature for an anomaly of 0.6 °C is 14.6 °C. It's like second grade math. There's literally no difference between a rise in surface temperature and a rise in temperature anomaly. They inter convert by addition and subtraction, i have no idea what makes you think that anything stops being a valid measurement at any point

[Anonymous No.6489039]

>>6488745
>>6487735
>>6485465

Holy inquisition, Batman! The religious fanatics are at their old tricks, again!

[Anonymous No.6489472]

>>6489039

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

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

[Anonymous No.6489704]

>>6489472
LOL