/sci/ - Science & Math

>Is this actually something we should worry about?
What is 'this'?

>>10079044
not us, rising will take to 2100 to really become genicidal, but kids and grand kids will curse us
We will get to enjoy the degrading of food security tho, that is progressing nicely already and will rise food prices etc. in the next decades

Have you read the recent audit of the HadCRUT4 dataset?

https://robert-boyle-publishing.com/product/audit-of-the-hadcrut4-global-temperature-dataset-mclean-2018/

Some of the outliers that were found in the audit:

>For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
>The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
>At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.

>>10079044
not us, rising will take to 2100 to really become genocidal, but kids and grand kids will curse us
We will get to enjoy the degrading of food security tho, that is progressing nicely already and will rise food prices etc. in the next decades

Main points:

>The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
>McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
>Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Colombia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
>Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
>Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
>When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

This is new, published this month.

Nasa and the IPCC and other authorities on the statistical pseudoscience of 'climatology' are full of lying kikes trying to push for global socialism. Fuck them and fuck their fake data.

>>10079044
Depends. Can you breathe underwater?

>>10079073
IPCC is too conservative if anything, they always decide by consensus so the lowest common denominator is what gets thru.
The data they use is also very old, data sets were collected 8-10 years ago. In a fast changing situation, that is systematically outdated.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>10079044
Long term it's probably a good thing. More coastline means more places for life to grow and better rainfall in the interiors of continents. Central Eurasia is going to be much improved by all that nearby water.

>>10079044
>New Zealand unscathed except for fucking Auckland.
Choice

>>10079044
The day of the flood cant come soon enough

>>10079113
HadCRUT4 as 2012, and the audit I linked above was published this month. It's been shown again and again that the data sets have been kiked beyond all recognition. I'm not memeing, they literally create that plot out of data adjustments. Climatologists are no better than social 'sciences' hacks

>>10079044
>cancerous coasties get BTFO
nah, it'll be good

>>10079044
Only if you have financial or sentimental interests near sea level.

>>10079137
>kiked beyond all recognition. I'm not memeing
>>>/pol/

>>10079044
Not for a while. Drought will cause huge famines in Africa and India/SEA long before sea level rise becomes an issue.

>>10079044
Looks like I might get a beach house

>>10079044
I really did like humanity. Oh well.

>>10079067
Did the outliers have an effect on the overall trends?

>>10079116
>more coastline that continually shrinks every decade and is scorched in the summers progressively
>>10079073
ah wow it must be my imagination all these wildfires and long summers

>>10079044
We should consider returning to be an aquatic species again.

>live in Colorado
eh, it's not an issue for now

>>10080546
You probably think there are more hurricanes than usual too, retard.

>>10079044
Not in the short term.

>>10079044
well considering our current problem is everything is on fire...more wetness cant be bad right?

>>10079044
My country is gone wtf

>>10080776
of course not, everyone knows that crops grow just great after dumping salt water on them

>>10079116
Yeah, unironically going to be great for Russia

>>10079044
Why is there a giant hole in eastern Europe?

>>10079044
Depends on where you live and what guns you have,.

>>10079067
Somebody haven't normalized missing values and can't count without them, so sad. Conversion from Fahrenheit haven't happened properly yet.

Data science not done properly.

>>10080793
This is a 100 meter rise
Worst case scenario if nothing is done in favor of environmental protection is a 0.6 meters rise

>>10080893
how do you know this? It's not easy to come up with these numbers you know and people just claim whatever tf they want about the environment. Shits just retarded man

>>10080837
pannonian lowland i suppose

>>10080837
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_European_Plain

>>10079044
>checks map
>house is still above sea level
let it flood faggots

>>10079044
Australia would turn green because of all the evaporation filling its hadley cell with moisture, neato

>>10079044

Holy shit the United States will lose a lot of states

>>10081277
yeah, all the fucking commies too

>>10079117
Looks exactly the same except Auckland and Christchurch have disappeared beneath the waves. Should be a huge improvement, can't wait.

>>10079044
>Florida gone
Wtf where will I get my publix subs then

>>10080544
nope

>>10079044
It's not like we're missing much without Florida.

>>10080532
>genetic fallacy that every alarmist applies to skeptics of the religion.

>>10079044
>UK
Rip

>>10082467
The commies will just move inland.

Apparently the GAST dataset is hot garbage too, which invalidates the NOAA and NASA datasets as well. Nice.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

>Climate """Science"""

If they want people to believe global warming/climate change can happen on their timescales (Not denying the overall impact of GHGs, just the stupid timescales they attach) perhaps they could start with some actually properly done research. Doesn't seem like too much to ask does it? Yet a huge amount of these studies are bunk garbage that a 6 year old could point out the flaws in.

Really makes you fucking think.

>>10082820

>>10081277
Are the rednecks gonna do okay?

>>10079044
>tfw barely changed
Say your prayers for your grandkids, americans, brits, russians, asians, and indians

So what's that Nordic country in top?

>>10082859
Kingdom of Åland

>>10082827
I could make a similar looking infograph for Climate Change pushers, lobbyists, corporations, etc... sit on both sides of this. The point is that the provided science is fucking garbage and anyone with a brain should want better data sets.

>>10082818
>Heartland Institute continues to spout garbage, calls it "research".
It would be funny if it wasn't dangerous.

Anyway, post something once climatologists have said something about it besides laughter.

>>10082886
>T. Finds himself living in the middle of the water

Was getting flooded a part of your plan?

>>10082892
Genetic fallacy. Refute any of the content in the paper or into the bin it goes.

>>10082904
I wish people who don't study this themselves didn't act like they can just read/post some random paper, ask people to "refute" it, and then act like they've "proven climate science wrong". You don't know shit about it, stop acting like you do.

>>10082906
You don't know my credentials or what I've done with my life you insipid faggot. Address the argument or kys and spare us your carbon footprint.

>>10082910
I can tell by the bullshit you posted that you're not a climate scientist.
>I studied chemical engineering, faggot. I know everything

>>10082911
Address the argument or post credentials so I can take you seriously.

>>10082911
I studied Harry Potter, that doesn't make me a wizard. Did you drop out during first semester or what?

>>10082904
>Refute any of the content in the paper or into the bin it goes.
Provide a reason I should give a shit about the paper. It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's not the conclusions or a reputable research group, it's an incredibly shoddy FUD piece by a industry PR group. And the work itself is AWFUL - there's no clear methodology or conclusion, no real argument about how large the impact of any of the discrepancies really is, just "we found some holes in the data so you should throw the whole thing out". And it pulls a bunch of well-known denier crap like jumping between national and global trends, inventing "cycles" out of thin air, misleading graphs with shonky endpoints and offsets, and dressing up data adjustments as a conspiracy.

It's bad.

>>10082966
Peer review is a joke, you can't get published unless you follow the orthodoxy.
You didn't even look at the paper, you relentless shitcake. You dismiss it out of hand because "muh denier" - trying to conflate skepticism of the GAST data and its proprietors with holocaust denial.

>>10082886
>making a mountain out of a molehill
hello big oil shill

>>10083058
Models all the way down.
GIGO

>>10083051
>Peer review is a joke, you can't get published unless you follow the orthodoxy.
Complete bullshit. AGW deniers get published all the time.
Surely if the paper was worth shit they wouldn't have had to find economists and authors to support it?

>You didn't even look at the paper
Yes I did, that's why I know it's awful. On the other hand, I suspect you haven't - you've defended none of the actual claims in the report.

>You dismiss it out of hand because "muh denier"
I specifically DIDN'T do that. I dismissed it because it's a bad paper with glaring issues, and pointed out some of it's flaws.

>trying to conflate skepticism of the GAST data and its proprietors with holocaust denial.
Where does this inane argument come from?

>>10083065
shitposters gtfo

>>10079044
>UK is gone
>Denmark too
>Italy is an island
>Urban China is sunk
>North East USA is underwater
>Cajuns are dead
We need to burn more coal

>>10083524
>Sweden is that you?

India and China are way ahead of you in that regard, so unless you get them and the rest of the turd world on board, good luck changing anything ever. Better to capitalize on it now and WALL or move north.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/10/07/the-u-s-coal-export-boom-to-china/#6ec2cc783454
Not that it would matter what we do anyway, we are a drop in the bucket.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/scientists-link-underwater-eruptions-climate-change-n301746

Do you realize how many undersea volcanoes are likely unknown? Oregon state estimates there may be up to a MILLION of them.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine

And the IPCC ranked them as having MINIMAL impact. These people are not practicing science - they are practicing dogma and abusing science through cherrypicking, omission and unrealistic extrapolation/modeling to push it.


A realistically mitigable threat to our future is plastic pollution in the ocean, which is another issue that will unfortunately have to be solved in countries that, up to this point, have shown to be less than mindful of their pollution output.

https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~afisher/CVpubs/pubs/FisherWheat2010_SeamountFluxes.pdf

>Analyses of satellite gravimetric and ship track data suggest that there could be as many as 10^5 seamounts having a radius of ≥ 3.5 km and
height ≥ 2 km (Wessel, 2001), and perhaps 10^6 to 10^7(!) features >100 m in height.

One million to TEN MILLION. And the paper goes on to observe that these smaller features are where most of the hydrothermal discharge tends to happen.

>minimal impact

>>10079044
If you live in the blue areas, yes worry about it. Buy a boat or move to the green areas

>>10084350
>MINIMAL impact
funny thing that, water

>>10082834
Don't worry about us rednecks we got boats, guns, trucks, and a whole lot of know how.

Looks cool

>>10084350
>India and China are way ahead of you in that regard
per-capita emissions of both
China and India have tiny per-capita emissions compared to places like the USA or Australia. They would have a long way to go before they reach us.

>Not that it would matter what we do anyway, we are a drop in the bucket.
Changes in carbon isotope balance clearly show that were are NOT a "drop in the bucket", and that the recent changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration are almost solely due to human activity.

>https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/scientists-link-underwater-eruptions-climate-change-n301746
This is talking about slow shifts over millions of years, not rapid changes in a few decades. Timescales matter.

>Do you realize how many undersea volcanoes are likely unknown? Oregon state estimates there may be up to a MILLION of them.
That's completely irrelevant. AFAIK Volcanic emissions are calculated from isotope balance, not volcano-counting.

>And the IPCC ranked them as having MINIMAL impact.
Because they are. Human emissions are two orders of magnitude larger.

>These people are not practicing science - they are practicing dogma and abusing science through cherrypicking, omission and unrealistic extrapolation/modeling to push it.
Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it not science.