/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6719799]

global warming continues to be perpetuated by false, tampered evidence
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

how's it feel to belive in pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.6719802]

I don't know, how's it feel to be getting your science from Breitbart?

[Anonymous No.6719806]

>>6719799
Why do humans consistently want to kill themselves? It never ceases to amaze me

[Anonymous No.6719807]

>>6719802
how's it feel that you need to shift the goal post to cling onto your pseudoscience?
the man was caught lying, please show how he wasn't

[Anonymous No.6719810]

>>6719799
>breitbart
>science
gr7 b7 m7 i'll r7 7/7

[Anonymous No.6719813]

>>6719810
see >>6719807

[Anonymous No.6719818]

>>6719807
But I don't even see any proof in the article that they actually did something wrong.

[Anonymous No.6719820]

>>6719799
Why do people keep debating this? There is a scientific consensus, the same one that says smoking cause lung cancer. You're not trying to disprove that? Are you?

>also I realize my post is a fallacy. call the cops

[Anonymous No.6719824]

>>6719810
read that as
>greven beven meven I'll revan seven/seven

I dont know why I found that shit so funny.

[Anonymous No.6719826]

>>6719818
Caught red handed tampering with climate data isn't wrong? OK

Also it's amazing how circular reasoning is perpetuated here
> breit is wrong! they say things that are wrong
> why are they wrong?
> because breit said it!

[Anonymous No.6719829]

>>6719826
This is going to be my last post because I think you must be a troll, since nobody has even exhibited the circular reasoning you're accusing them of here.

But they weren't "caught red-handed". Homogenization isn't tampering. It's regularizing it with other records and error calculations.

[Anonymous No.6719835]

>>6719829
I'll be honest, my dad is sending me this stuff and I wanted to argue but it would be easier if sci did it for me and I just learn
Tell me more about homogenization

[Anonymous No.6719845]

Name another type of scientific data that is homogenized in the same way that climate data is.

[Anonymous No.6719860]

>>6719845
Carbon dating.

[Anonymous No.6719861]

>>6719845
Yeah this, I just keep getting a different type of homogenization for chemistry

[Anonymous No.6719862]

>>6719835
see
>>6719756

>>6719845
Mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6719864]

>>6719845

Isn't that the scientific method?

"We didn't conduct any experiment, we just compiled spotty pre-recorded data from various sources. Then we adjusted the data to reflect our estimates of intangible influencing factors. Then we threw out the original data, along with the adjustments. Then we conducted statistical analysis and obtained narrow error estimates."

[Anonymous No.6719867]

>>6719820
>scientific consensus
Science is not something you vote on.
If you can't produce the evidence to back up your claim or if evidence turns out to be fraudulent and falls apart you lose. Doesn't matter how many scientist you pay off with grant money.

Everything in climate research reeks of fraud.
There have been so many scandals and outlandish predictions that never happen that I just ignore the entire field now because it's all bullshit.

Predicting the climate is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.6719870]

>>6719867
>Science is not something you vote on.
In reality, it is. Science is to some extent based on appeals to expertise and reputation. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6719873]

>>6719860
I have found no evidence of this. Please link.

>>6719862

Mathematics doesn't work with experimental data so I don't see how this is a point. If you are talking about using statistics, then you should know that statistics doesn't actually alter the experimental data.

>>6719864

There is nothing wrong with using error analysis, but you should never justify actually adjusting data.

[Anonymous No.6719875]

>>6719873
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

[Anonymous No.6719882]

>>6719873
>There is nothing wrong with using error analysis, but you should never justify actually adjusting data.

Sure, nothing wrong with error analysis. But literally throwing out your data and adjustments and only keeping the adjusted data would not be accepted in another scientific field. And without a record of the "homogenizing" adjustments, error estimates will likely be under-estimates.

[Anonymous No.6719888]

>>6719875
This is very different from the homogenization of climate data.

From the previous post about the homogenization process, it is clear that they have moved to measuring in places or times where temperatures are lower and then they attempt to correct it through predictive algorithms which are only estimates.

In the climate data, they have clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric radiocarbon data based on comparing measurements of 1890 wood to experimental data. Thus they decide that atmospheric carbon radioactivity has changed by 2%

[Anonymous No.6719891]

>>6719882

I think we are arguing for the same thing. I think the climate change data is not accurate.

[Anonymous No.6719893]

>>6719799
This is pretty funny.

>They adjusted the data! That must mean they're tampering with the evidence to make it fit their agenda! Adjusting means changing and changing means lying! Surely science doesn't correct itself when evidence shows models need to be adjusted to be accurate!

>And I can't understand why they would do this! Therefore there must be no good reason and they are just hiding their lies! Surely, I am a smart person who understands what is and isn't proper scientific conduct!

[Anonymous No.6719897]

>>6719888
No it isn't different at all. When certain sampling affects make your result inaccurate, you need to adjust your model to account for those sampling affects. This happens in any scientific field where a predictive model is made, practically all of them. The only one being fed propaganda here is you.

[Anonymous No.6719904]

[Anonymous No.6719913]

>>6719897

How do you justify these adjustments for a science where the current predictive model is highly inaccurate?

Yeah we can do temperatures sometimes, but earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis are rarely ever predicted before they occur.

[Anonymous No.6719923]

>>6719913
>How do you justify these adjustments for a science where the current predictive model is highly inaccurate?
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you believe there is a single predictive model in climatology or that the current ones are "highly inaccurate". When did you stop beating your wife?

And the models we're talking about are primarily predicting global and regional temperatures. Predicting things like earthquakes can't be done because the system leading to them is too chaotic. Nor is there an effort to predict these things based on a climatologist model because there are already reliable methods to tell us when they are about to happen. For example, we can see hurricanes forming easily.

[Anonymous No.6719927]

>>6719923

Do you think the models that predict global and regional temperatures are as accurate as other scientific models in other areas?

[Anonymous No.6719930]

>>6719927
I don't know, I don't have the data to make that comparison on hand. But this is very interesting. Are you saying that generally they aren't? Why would you make this claim? Have you ever actually looked at the statistically determined accuracy and compared it to other models? Or are you just assuming that your pet ideology is empirically correct?

[Anonymous No.6719935]

>>6719930

All I am saying is that compared to other areas (like particle physics, where they do not declare a discovery until 5 sigma and where they routinely have data with 1% error of models), I would make a bet the temperature models are no where near as accurate.

I will try to find research on this later, but I would be shocked if temperature data predictions were closer to actual data than models in other areas, including things like carbon dating, financing, etc..

[Anonymous No.6719937]

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

No, but I'm sure OP knows more than the thousands of scientists with PHDs.

[Anonymous No.6719940]

>>6719935
A discovery is not a model though. They are completely different things. Physics is operating at a more fundamental level, a less applied level, than climatology. It's not a relevant comparison.

>I would make a bet the temperature models are no where near as accurate.
Yes of course you would. It would be amazing if you actually bothered to look up the accuracy rather than just assuming your right based on pathetic blind faith. But then you might be getting too close to "fraudulent science".

[Anonymous No.6719956]

>>6719940

I dont know why you are being antagonistic to me about my blind faith when you don't back up your claims either.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm

Here climate models predicted a warm winter when there was actually a bitterly cold one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html

"A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.
Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.
These I found after googleing accuracy of climate models

[Anonymous No.6719958]

>>6719956
>dailymail

[Anonymous No.6719961]

>>6719958
They list their source as the Journal Nature Climate Change.

[Anonymous No.6719974]

>>6719956
What claims have I not backed up?

>http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm
One anecdote is not a comparison of models.

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

[Anonymous No.6719988]

>>6719870
>Science is to some extent based on appeals to expertise and reputation

SRSLY, did you seriously say that although it's naught but popular and the foundations of science, meaning the scientific method, were disregarded utterly we must conform to it?
Because its, 'popular' ?
Because someone else was stupid before us?

[Anonymous No.6719993]

>>6719974
The anecdote is not a comparison of models I agree, but I don't you can ever say a model is accurate if it gives the opposite result of what actually happens.

And you have a link saying the models are accurate, while my link from the year says the opposite.

If the science was strong, this wouldn't occur. To quote Rutherford :
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

[Anonymous No.6719999]

>>6719799
>false, tampered evidence discovered by evidentiary experts at Breitbart

[Anonymous No.6720003]

Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology are simply fudging the numbers. Pick related. Red is "homogenized" and blue plots the raw data.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-records-contradict-bureau-of-meteorology/story-e6frg6xf-1227037936046?nk=2d1f532acfc412439451b975cf9675e5#

Its behind a paywall but the google trick works.
Just google >Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology
And click on the first link.

Some more articles on this.
>http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/
>http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/bom-claims-rutherglen-data-was-adjusted-because-of-site-move-but-it-didnt-happen/

[Anonymous No.6720004]

>>6719988
>SRSLY, did you seriously say that although it's naught but popular and the foundations of science, meaning the scientific method, were disregarded utterly we must conform to it?
Can you translate that question to coherent English?

>>6719993
>If the science was strong, this wouldn't occur. To quote Rutherford :
>“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
This is an idiotic argument. Virtually every single scientific consensus has naysayers. "If the science on vaccines was strong we wouldn't have people saying vaccines are dangerous." This is pure confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.6720005]

>>6720003
Woops, forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.6720008]

>>6720003
Apparently carbon dating experts are simply fudging the numbers. The raw data shows living snails were dated as being 27,000 years old, but the "homogenized" data claims they are only a few years old. Clearly this is because carbon dating scientists are trying to hide the fact that snails are actually immortal.

[Anonymous No.6720014]

>>6720008
I'm not sure why you're dragging carbon dating into this. And everything else doesn't really make much sense either.

Care to not shitpost?

[Anonymous No.6720023]

>>6720014
Well I'm simply bringing to your attention another example of scientific misconduct in "homogenizing" data. You see, if you carbon date a living mollusk like a snail then you will find they are actually thousands of years old. Fraudulent scientists are trying to hide the truth about snails' immortality, just as they are trying to hide the truth about the climate by changing data. don't you see the connection? Or are you trying to hide the truth about snails also?

Actually, one can find scientists changing data when creating a model in almost every field of science. Scientists are just fraudsters it seems.

[Anonymous No.6720046]

>>6720023
I'm not sure why you're still rambling on about snails.

The question that remains is why they homogenized the data. Simply stating that that's what scientists do is pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.6720052]

>>6720046
I already explained why. If you think manipulating data is wrong, then you should stand with me on the snails conspiracy, which has not gotten nearly as much attention as the climate conspiracy. Or do you simply not care about scientists lying?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634.abstractat

[Anonymous No.6720069]

>>6720052
I'm not sure what we're actually arguing about anymore.

Having a doctorate certainly won't make people any less fraudulent if that's what you're after.

Disregarding scientific integrity as a whole, i'm just wondering why they can't seem to produce a straight answer for why they modified these data sets. If the homogenization had merit you'd expect them to simply show you why.

[Anonymous No.6720071]

>>6720052
>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634.abstractat

The difference is that when they adjust the data for carbon dating, they have a legitimate reason for doing so based upon their model which has shown to be accurate in every case. There isn't a single scrap of carbon dating evidence that goes in reverse of the model.

When climate scientists homogenize their data, they do so based on models which can be shown to be inaccurate based on real data and evidence posted in this thread).

[Anonymous No.6720083]

>>6720069
>>6720071
There are several reasons for why adjustments are made to temperature data. Your ignorance of them is not an argument for their nonexistence.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

[Anonymous No.6720093]

>>6720071
The reason they adjust for carbon dating is because they are aware of an effect that gives an inaccurate result. In mollusks, the shell contains more carbon than would be expected from the normal reasoning of carbon dating because mollusks uniquely sequester carbon dioxide.

When climate scientists homoegenize data, they do so for the exact same reason. They become aware of certain effects that interfere with the assumptions of the model, like changes in the technology, location, or time of temperature measurement. It has nothing to do with one climate models being less accurate than carbon dating, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6720097]

>>6720083

"Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate."

So temperature is measured voluntarily and isn't meant to be used for long-scale observation.

"OInce the data has been collected, it is subjected to an automated quality control (QC) procedure that looks for anomalies like repeated entries of the same temperature value, minimum temperature values that exceed the reported maximum temperature of that day (or vice-versa), values that far exceed (by five sigma or more) expected values for the station, and similar checks. A full list of QC checks is available here.

Daily minimum or maximum temperatures that fail quality control are flagged, and a raw daily file is maintained that includes original values with their associated QC flags"

So data that looks wrong is just thrown out if it doesn't agree with what is expected.

"The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm was designed as an automated method of detecting and correcting localized temperature biases due to station moves, instrument changes, microsite changes, and meso-scale changes like urban heat islands."

So basically the experiment repeatedly gets altered.

All of these are bad science.

[Anonymous No.6720108]

>>6720097
>So temperature is measured voluntarily and isn't meant to be used for long-scale observation.
Wow, you might want to try reading that sentence again. Reading comprehension not your strongsuit, buddy?

>So data that looks wrong is just thrown out if it doesn't agree with what is expected.
Again you are really having a hard time reading this without putting all kinds of assumptions into it. Where does it say the data is thrown out? It says the data is flagged.

>So basically the experiment repeatedly gets altered.
Yes, that usually happens when you correct things. You alter them.

>All of these are bad science.
Nope, you are just scientifically illiterate.

[Anonymous No.6720126]

"Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate."
>focused on day-to-day
>rather than decadal-scale

Thanks for your argumentative tone, it really betters your argument.

"A monthly mean is calculated only when nine or fewer daily values are missing or flagged"

If there are too many flags (data that doesn't agree with what they would expect) a monthly mean is not calculated. Therefore they don't reveal data that doesn't agree with they want. They keep it in the raw file of course, but that is not what is publicized.

Constantly changing the experiment by having an automated program decide what is appropriate values of error is not good science.

Instead of having a computer algorithm adjust the data, they need to stop moving the equipment and messing with the experiment.

Experiments are of course repeated by different labs and groups, but when you are trying to get a baseline data for long-term change. If you want a different experiment, you need to have a completely different experiment with different instruments and people behind it.

[Anonymous No.6720137]

>>6719799
Also I would add to it conspiracy angle: developed countries have massive incentive to falsify evidence because of carbon emission trading. check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading#Criticisms

[Anonymous No.6720141]

>>6720126
>Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.
Do you understand what past tense means. Here are some hints this sentence is speaking about stations as they were in the past:
>these stations were set up
>late 1800s and early 1900s

The author then goes on to describe how CHANGES in the methodology of measurement like improved technology and focusing on more accurate longer term measurements made it necessary to correct temperature data.

Jesus Christ. It really isn't that hard, unless you are deliberately trying to be stupid.

>Therefore they don't reveal data that doesn't agree with they want.
No, they don't release data that is full of errors. The reasons for why data is flagged has nothing to do with what climatologists want to see. A repeated value is evidence of a mistake. A very very high or low temperature is evidence of a mistake. Statistical significance has nothing to do with what you want to see, it tells you what likely occurred and what likely did not occur.

>Constantly changing the experiment by having an automated program decide what is appropriate values of error is not good science.
It is good science. It corrects errors. Not having an automated program would give you inaccurate data. That would be bad science.

>Instead of having a computer algorithm adjust the data, they need to stop moving the equipment and messing with the experiment.
Wow, what a fucking great insight. When are you going to become a climatologist and show them how it's done properly? Oh, never? You have no idea what you're talking about you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6720144]

>>6719867
Are you me?

[Anonymous No.6720149]

>>6719867

>If you can't produce the evidence to back up your claim or if evidence turns out to be fraudulent and falls apart you lose. Doesn't matter how many scientist you pay off with grant money.

>"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.6720150]

>>6720144
>>6719999
You probably are if you're samefagging.

[Anonymous No.6720160]

>>6720141
Quote me the line in the article where it states these stations were adapted to focus on decadal-scale changes. All I read is that is says they moved positions on average 3 times.

I am not arguing they changed their methodology.

They also don't say that a repeated value is evidence of mistake, they say "values that far exceed (by five sigma or more) expected values for the station"

So if a single data isn't in their range , they flag it, and if too many other data points are flagged, they don't calculate a monthly mean.

Just saying you have an automated program that corrects errors is good science is misleading.

"If one station is warming rapidly over a period of a decade a few kilometers from a number of stations that are cooling over the same period, the warming station is likely responding to localized effects (instrument changes, station moves, microsite changes, etc.) rather than a real climate signal."

This code relies on the assumption that temperature doesn't increase or decrease abruptly around a region and that is false as can be shown through heat maps that depict regional temperatures. Abrupt changes in temperature can be seen in areas due to environmental factors such as mountainous regions.

And I don't understand why you think they have to constantly keep moving their equipment to different locations. When we are trying to measure how temperature changes in a location over time, the last thing you want to do is change that location. Experiments require good control of variables, and changing the variable of measurement position is one that needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.6720179]

>>6720160
>Quote me the line in the article where it states these stations were adapted to focus on decadal-scale changes.
>Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS).

>They also don't say that a repeated value is evidence of mistake, they say "values that far exceed (by five sigma or more) expected values for the station"
>Once the data has been collected, it is subjected to an automated quality control (QC) procedure that looks for anomalies like repeated entries of the same temperature value,

>So if a single data isn't in their range , they flag it, and if too many other data points are flagged, they don't calculate a monthly mean.
What does "their range" mean? Do you not understand the concept of statistical significance?

>Just saying you have an automated program that corrects errors is good science is misleading.
How is it misleading? You don't know what you're talking about. Nope, let's just leave statistically obvious errors in and call it reality! You're a fucking genius!

>This code relies on the assumption that temperature doesn't increase or decrease abruptly around a region and that is false as can be shown through heat maps that depict regional temperatures. Abrupt changes in temperature can be seen in areas due to environmental factors such as mountainous regions.
Heat maps show different regions have different temperatures. It doesn't show that areas close by to each other, in the same region, have different temperatures. In fact they show the exact opposite. And since all of this data is being used to compute an average regional or global temperature, anomalies are specifically what you want to avoid. Anomalies will have an outsized affect on the average.

[Anonymous No.6720187]

>>6720160
But regardless, none of this shows climatologists are editing the data according to what they want. Very high temperatures will be flagged just as much as very low temperatures. The correction eliminates biases, it doesn't create them.

>And I don't understand why you think they have to constantly keep moving their equipment to different locations. When we are trying to measure how temperature changes in a location over time, the last thing you want to do is change that location. Experiments require good control of variables, and changing the variable of measurement position is one that needs to stop.
Why do you think they don't? I mean, have you ever been to one of these stations? Do you know the realities of their operation? No, you don't, yet you presume to know that they don't need to do what they're doing. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is all a bunch of bullshit from someone who doesn't want to learn anything, you just want to sit in your armchair and whine and ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Fuck you. I'm out.

[Anonymous No.6720189]

I think the biggest problem people have with this is that the entire notion of global warming apparently hinges on statistical error corrections. Compacted with previous accusations of scientific misconduct.

[Anonymous No.6720199]

>>6720187
I actually have seen a station before, it is just a bunch of equipment secured to the ground with a big red/white antenna. I don't understand why you are so upset because your post didn't really add to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.6720205]

>>6720179
When I said in their range, I was referring to the part of the article where it said "values that far exceed (by five sigma or more) expected values for the station". It seems each station has some range of values where temperature should appropriately be.

And I understand that there are errors where their could be temperatures reported too high or too low, but from the article it seems that these not only include outrageous data points but ones that fall just outside of an expected range (previous quote).

[Anonymous No.6720212]

>>6719799
Why should I care what a former biologist thinks about climate science?

[Anonymous No.6720233]

>>6719799
Oops, you caught us. Congratulations. No longer will the scientific community be able to disguise a concerted effort to develop terraforming techniques under the guise of alarmist popular science.

Have some of you somehow not thought about the engineering implications of global warming science?

[Anonymous No.6720298]

>>6719799
go be a shill somewhere else

[Anonymous No.6720328]

This is the current hair up the collective denialist ass.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=040004

[Anonymous No.6720332]

>2014
>Still thinking that this "global warming" is anything other than your typical interglacial

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

In fact I lie, this isn't a typical interglacial, it's actually a colder interglacial than normal.

Anyway, ice age in a couple thousand years is the problem, not heat.

[Anonymous No.6720458]

>>6720205
Five sigma means that 99.99997% of all measurements are less extreme than that measurement. How exactly do you think "outrageous" data points are found?