/sci/ - Science & Math

Imagine >1 billion Africans trying to get into Europe lmao

why do we trust temperature data from 65 years ago?

>>14786321
detailed information exists since 1850, when methodical thermometer-based records began
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

>>14786321
...bcoz "we" are not cynically mistrustful conspiracy theorists?

>>14786351
we are skeptical of the accuracy of ancient technology anon :)

>>14786384
>we are skeptical
You do not know the meaning of the word "skeptical".
>>14786321
>65 years ago
>>14786384
>ancient technology
L0Lno fgt pls

>>14786421
why don’t you just give me error bounds instead of snark anon you’re apparently exceptionallu well-read on the subject

>>14786270
Shouldn't be exactly the oposite? During the glacial period most of the earth was steppe, thundra or savanna, generally arid.

Meanwhile always the temperatures where hotter and CO2 far higher the climate was humid, including the sahara.

>>14786434
>why don’t you just give me error bounds
Why don't you just learn the meaning of "skeptical" and of "error bounds",
instead of nagging me about it?

>>14786384
>ancient technology
But the temperature is also reconstructed with modern technology and archives such as tree rings and corals. Why do you bother to comment if you don't even know the slightest thing?

>>14786434
>error bounds
ESL or HSD (Highschool Dropout)?

>>14786351
>>14786344
>>14786421
But where were these measurements made? How do they have data for antartica and russia given gobal weather sattelites didn't exist before 1976? And why compare one decade to two?

>>14786256
Somewhere between totally and not at all

>>14786256
I remember when I was a kid in the 90's and 26-7c was considered an heatwave in the UK.

No we are getting 35c+. Anyone who says global warming isn't real are either zoomers or retarded.

>>14786270
Also:
>https://theconversation.com/rising-carbon-dioxide-is-making-the-worlds-plants-more-water-wise-79427/

>>14786527
Burn coal for a greener world.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

>>14786472
But we're not in a glacial period. Rather the opposite.

>>14786504
All that information is available online, Anon.
If you cared about it, you would have found it by now.

>>14786535
Not a glacial maximum but still a cold period overall, at least compared with the past. By comparison still is undecided if the medieval, roman and minoan (bronze age) warm periods were warmer or similar to the current climate.

And to put in perspective, the quaternary-holocene are the coldest periods since the permian-carboniferous period (300Mypb), those were the coldest (long) periods and with lowest CO2-O2 ratio since the global glaciation in the precambric-ediacara period (600Mybp).

So, recent and ancient data back the idea that global temperature comes with humid and greener periods until there is a CO2 depletion like in the carboniferous and the cenozoic (since 50Mybp and 8 Mypb).

>>14786535

>>14786536
So you don't know either, thats great anon.

My points still stand, the data they are comparing to isn't solid enough.

>>14786535

>>14786597
That ice core record ends at 1850 but it’s fraudulently labeled as ending in 1995

>>14786256
It's over.
Not because of GW right away. But because other things collapsing will cause us to ignore GW long enough for it to grow out of our control.

>>14786489
shouldn't it be HSDO

>>14786589
nah you're just lazy

>>14786746
>curry
"she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in."
In other words:
source: her ass

>>14786532
>piss in pants to get warm
retard

>>14791579
Triggered dipshit?

>>14791642
just calling out your 3 day attention span

>>14786256
Depends on whether or not you invested in Siberian ocean front property

>>14786256
>How fucked are we?
Depends upon where "we" live, and what resources "we" have.

>>14786589
>My points
If you have a "point", perhaps you should sharpen it.

>>14786270
>California is still standing
Even in fucking Hell those roaches survive.Overall such a nightmare scenario, billions migrating north, but after a few millions people will get tired and build a fucking wall protected by drones and machine guns, look at 2015 refugees crisis, barely 1 mil and the people wanted to change things already and started to hate immigrants.

>>14786522
Zoomers are the ones who believe in global warming the most. It's older people like boomers who disbelieve.

>>14786522
The hottest heatwave in UK history was in the 70s. You're just not old enough to remember.

>>14786256
hydrocarbon based transportation will remain the standard for several decades. Hell, even energy is still very dependent of coal and fossil fuels. We don't have much time remaining so the best we could aspire is to minimize the damages or idk, brace ourselves to the idea of no more meat, water stress and whatnot. I probably won't be alive to see the worst of it, though.

>>14786256
Very fucked. You should be horrified of what is yet to come.

>>14793516
The pole flip and return to glacial ice will be a wakeup call.

>>14793526
You're a retard. Doesnt matter though, the most stressful period in human history is probably going to be the next 4 years or so, you are a low IQ who's going to get wiped off the world, a splatter stain on human's windshield as we move ahead trying to solve this problem.

>>14786270
That diagram fails to cover the fact that with solar panels across all those deserts, we have more than enough power to run desalination plants to irrigate the deserts.

>>14786256
Considering you exist you are all fucked.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXV6_0PD_KpVoZdQqh_rz_8m5DpDF6FVK

https://realclimatescience.com/

>>14786321
We've been able to take the temperature for a lot longer than 65 years. What is your argument?

November 1976 issue of National Geographic

>>14793709
Solar panels (current tech) only work well in cold deserts. The sahara is too hot, the fine sand doesn't help.

>>14793778
>>>/x/

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

NASA 1999

>>14793781
It's pretty telling that deniers quoteNationalGeographic instead of actual scientific papers.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png

NASA 2021

>>14793785
>Solar panels (current tech) only work well in cold deserts
Source?

>>14793792
NASA

>>14793790
>>14793794
>different data sets are different
I'm absolutely shocked.

>>14793798
"Data sets"? These are temperature recordings. Are you saying each time NASA present a temperature graph they jump in a time machine, go back in time and measure temperature again?

>>14793797
N A T I O N A L G E O G R A P H I C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8whock3LAew&list=PLXV6_0PD_KpVoZdQqh_rz_8m5DpDF6FVK&index=4

>>14793798
>>14793802
No reply.
I'm absolutely shocked.

>>14793795
>https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/solar-cell-operation/effect-of-temperature

Tl;dr The efficiency decrease of about 0.45%/ºC.

>>14786256
> we
shills are fucked very deeply

>>14793802
>"Data sets"? These are temperature recordings.
No they are not. Thanks for showing everyone here you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think there is a giant thermometer in the middle of the US that records "US temperature?" No, there are many thermometers all over that have to be averaged over their spacial coverage, otherwise the temperature would be biased towards the areas with the most thermometers at any given time. This also requires that the data from each station is comparable to each other over their entire time frame, which may not be the case if methodologies change or temperature stations move. Earlier attempts to calculate average temperature did not take these changes into account, but now they do. See https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Tony Heller knows all this but doesn't tell you about it, because he's a fraud who's trying to scam you.

>>14793808
>>14793820
BTFO

>>14793802
Oh and here is an explanation of the exact changes that were implemented after 1999: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02300a.html

>>14793820
"Scam" me? Into what? He doesn't even have ads on his website. :D
You are such a loser.

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

>>14793843
>Into what?
Into posting his graphs and repeating his bullshit.

And thanks for failing to counter anything I said. You won't be posting this bullshit again, right?

>>14793805
It's weird how the video starts off by claiming we can't compare predictions to data because the days is made to fit the model, but only gives examples of data changes that affect the past. Predictions would be compared to future data, not data in the past. Here's your comparison of predictions to data. Looks pretty good.

As to the claims of data manipulation, these are simply corrections that the person who made the video didn't even try to understand. Time of observation affects the temperature. Station moves affect the temperature. It would be dishonest to ignore these factors, but for some reason correcting them is claimed to be proof of dishonesty. Not to mention that the affects of these circumstances actually reduce the global warming trend. So the whole argument is complete nonsense.

>>14793870
Whoops, forgot to post the projections.

>>14793845
>Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say.
So let's make it even hotter and drier? I don't get your point.

Fucking shills man. I just wish the world wasn't so stupid. Why, God...

>>14793811
A small drop in efficiency doesn't mean they don't work in warm areas. You're making shit up.

>>14793870
Video is literally 12 minutes long, you haven't even scratched the surface. Yet openly and blatantly lie by saying at the end "So the whole argument is complete nonsense" as if you addressed entire video because you know nobody is actually gonna watch it.

>>14793856
And this overall belittling condescending evil attitude. It's like they are incapable of looking in the mirror. Apparently they love the world so much and care about it so much but this is how they behave towards other people.

Pure demonic evil.

>>14793888
So the whole argument is complete nonsense
That was referring to the argument about data corrections. The rest of the video is equally stupid and doesn't rectify any of the mistakes I pointed out. The misrepresentation of the 1990 IPCC figure as a temperature reconstruction is especially egregious:

https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm

As is the claim that the hockey stock graph methodology and data was hidden:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

As is the claim that the "hockey stock predictions" didn't happen when the hockey stock was a temperature reconstruction, not predictions.

Should I go on? Please feel free to jump in at any time to defend your video.

>>14793905
>You are such a loser.
>And this overall belittling condescending evil attitude.
lmao, what a hypocrite. And still failing to counter anything I said. You aren't going to post those graphs again now that you know the reason why they changed, right? You can tell me, I won't be mad.

>>14793785
Utter garbage.

>>14793811
Insignificant.

>>14793887
You are probably right.

>>14793888
>>14793911
No response, I guess I'll continue then.

The hockey stick global temperature reconstruction doesn't show the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age because they were not global events. It's that simple, yet somehow Paul Burgess doesn't get that. He can cherrypick whatever examples he wants, until he makes an actual temperature reconstruction that takes into account all the data, not just the data that agrees with him he isn't proving anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
>The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region

>>14786256
>it’s slightly warmer
Don’t care. You’re a fucking retard if you’re worried about that.

[1]

61% Fake Data

The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity. The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653928
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-27192857_shadow.jpg

In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X10aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZioEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6800,1495975
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-10182441_shadow.jpg

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=llJeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AWENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5501,1378938&dq=james-hansen&hl=en
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1050_shadow.png

But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1056_shadow.png

And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.
>in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-06-at-6.41.34-AM.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-10184809_shadow.jpg

>>14786270
Whoever made this is an absolute fucking retard who thinks hot-desert

[2]

This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-US-1999-2016-2.gif

The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDaoHMHyDWxR3PqUP0EdtdIUU84/edit?usp=sharing
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USHCNMonthlyAverageMeasuredVs_shadow.jpg

If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.

The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USHCNAdjustmentFinalMinusRaw3_shadow.jpg

Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R2 = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USHCNAdjustmentVs_shadow.jpg

[3]

Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PercentOfUSHCNMonthlyTemperatureDataWhichIsFabricated_shadow.jpg

I grouped the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:

1. Measured and adjusted (blue)
2. Estimated (red)

Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/USHCNTemperatureTrendsSince1990_shadow-2.jpg

The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data. Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DifferenceBetweenFabricatedAndMeasuredAdjustedTemperature_shadow.jpg

Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-10-at-7.27.04-AM.gif

But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=llJeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AWENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5501,1378938&dq=james-hansen&hl=en
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1050_shadow.png

There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.

>>14791579
That literally works. It’s recommended to urinate into a bottle and store the bottle within your jacket or something along those lines if you’re in dangerous cold, because it comes out pretty warm and you’ll waste that heat if you just piss into the snow.

>>14793516
>it’s slightly warmer and there’s more plants growing; how horrifying

>>14793883
Hotter=/=dryer
Deserts don’t exist outside of rain shadows from mountains or in the horse latitudes. Maybe Antarctica counts too, but that’s deep inland and the polar vortex probably has a drying effect like the horse latitudes. Making most places hotter will just make them more humid and turn ‘em into jungles.

>>14793962
>>14793959
>>14793955
Explain why the temperature isn't going up.

>>14786270
A warmer world is a wetter world, it means rainforests expand into temperate forest and grassland regions.

>>14793955
Oh boy, so now you're just copy paying blog posts straight from Tony? Let me know when you can explain why he lied to you about the NASA tenperature record and then maybe I'll debunk the rest of his bullshit.

>>14793979
Mesozoic jungle paradise world by 2100 or I want a refund

[1]

Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts

There has been no trend in Arctic Sea ice since 2006.

ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod_test/ice/index/v2p1/nh/osisaf_nh_sie_daily.txt
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/OSI-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-17.png

Our top experts said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2008.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.30.14-AM.gif

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.32.29-AM.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7588329.stm
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-21-at-8.49.24-AM-down.gif

>there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015. “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic”

https://web.archive.org/web/20100708231750/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Image-548-down.png

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1907&dat=20071212&id=stVGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p_0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1374,2602053&hl=en
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Image-477.png

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20071212&id=E8tOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9R8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3919,3618027&hl=en
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.17.30-AM-down-1.gif

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-14-06-55-27_shadow.png

[2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.09.46-AM.gif

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/gore-new-study-sees-nearly-ice-free-arctic-summer-ice-cap-as-early-as-2014/1#.VIFoKTHF_A6
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/b4bw0yiciaapjqb-2.gif

https://web.archive.org/web/20121021140433/http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-11124836_shadow.png

https://web.archive.org/web/20160314221453/http://ecosanity.org/act/actioncampaigns/race2survival/2100
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Image-1100.png

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.35.34-AM-down-1.gif

https://web.archive.org/web/20140329183716/http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease?fb_action_ids=633465710015337&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/screenhunter_69-jun-11-21-44-2_shadow.png

https://www.newspapers.com/image/127069653/?terms=ice%20free%20arctic&match=1
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Image-3959-down-1.png

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-14-06-58-28_shadow.png

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/13/the-end-of-the-arctic-ocean-could-be-ice-free-by-2015.html
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ScreenHunter_9954-Jul_shadow.png

[3]

https://www.chemistryworld.com/review/a-farewell-to-ice/2500152.article
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-14-07-01-26_shadow.png

And President Obama’s science adviser predicted ice-free winters.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101205194353/http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3

>…if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.

>>14793971
>Hotter=/=dryer
It is when the area is already dry.

>>14794004
Don’t live in shitty dry places then.

>>14794014
We're talking about California, not where I live.

>>14793979
Unless you burn it all :)

>>14794004
Hotter ocean surface more evaporation more rains wetter.

Even the Sahara-Arabia went from desert to ~savanna to desert depending on average global temperature.

https://realclimatescience.com/the-history-of-the-modern-climate-change-scam/

[1]

The History Of The Modern “Climate Change” Scam

In January 1972, the National Science Foundation held a meeting at Brown University to discuss “climatic change” – when meant global cooling, which they said was of natural origin.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064334_shadow.png

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01063754_shadow.png
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/178/4057/190

Later that year, the participants sent a letter to President Nixon warning of a new ice age within a century.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064204_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064212_shadow.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW40/CD&PW_reeves_denver.pdf

The White House “seized” on the global cooling threat.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01065351_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01065359_shadow.png

NASA’s top climate experts predicted a new ice age by the year 2021.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Image363_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Image365_shadow.png
https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/148085303.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=html+%2C+&author=By+Victor+Cohn%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7CWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald++%281959-1973%29&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming&pqatl=top_retrieves

The US Military responded to the global cooling, which they said was causing “extreme weather”

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01070000_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01070014_shadow.png

https://realclimatescience.com/the-history-of-the-modern-climate-change-scam/

[2]

Everything which now gets blamed on global warming, was blamed on global cooling.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01070647_shadow.png

Scientists realized that global cooling was a potential big money scam for them.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01070825_shadow.png

In 1974, the New York Times reported on a meeting of climate experts in Germany. There was unanimous consensus that global cooling threatened the world’s food supply.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24004942_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24002524_shadow.png

Walter Orr Roberts of NCAR was a key player behind this.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24005417_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-10-24002542_shadow.png
https://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02E2DB1E3CEF34BC4053DFBE66838F669EDE

In 1974, the CIA said global cooling would produce drought, famine, international conflict and political unrest throughout the world.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image464_shadow.png
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1241&dat=19760504&id=uGxTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8oUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6620,6677103&hl=en

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image469_shadow.png
https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf

>>14794046
>Hotter ocean surface more evaporation more rains wetter.
Not actually how it works.

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

https://realclimatescience.com/the-history-of-the-modern-climate-change-scam/

[3]

The White House bought off on the global cooling/climate change scam, and by December, 1974 taxpayer dollars were permanently diverted extorted by the scientists. By the early 1980’s, the global cooling scam had seamlessly morphed into the global warming scam.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01071001_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01071028_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01071058_shadow.png

The climate mafia now denies the global cooling scam ever happened, saying it consisted of “nine paragraphs in Newsweek in 1975.” Climate criminals assume that everyone else is stupid and will believe anything they say.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Image369_shadow.png
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

There is nothing new about this however. Scientists have been pulling the same climate change scam for centuries.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image720_shadow.png
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1298497/60952

lmao at the retarded denier who got BTFO and had to spam the thread with copy and pasted blog posts to try to hide it.

>>14794027
Cali is fine west of the mountains. Those things always make rain shadows.

https://realclimatescience.com/the-five-top-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

[1]

The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism

1. Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather. This concept is deeply rooted in human nature, and has its roots in ancient stories of giant floods, famines and plagues – caused (of course) by man’s sins. Climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, and pushing the same idea of extreme weather and floods caused by mankind’s carbon sins.

The reality is that there is no legitimate evidence extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating. The fears are baseless.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Percent-Of-Days-Above-900F-Vs-Year-1918-2018-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-Percent-Of-Days-Above-900F-vs-Year_shadow-2-1024x933.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/hiding-the-decline-in-extreme-weather/

2. Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world’s millions of scientists.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/screenhunter_776-jul-03-21-00-1_shadow.jpg

Obama’s claims are baseless, yet politicians want to prosecute climate heretics.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2015-10-25-18-03-241_shadow.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf

https://realclimatescience.com/the-five-top-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

[2]

There has never been any survey done of actual scientists which showed anything remotely like Obama’s claims. Obama made his claim in 2013, but a survey of professional members of the American Meteorological Society made that year, showed that only 52% of their members believed global warming is primarily man-made – much less dangerous. (I am not aware of any broad survey of scientists where they were even asked if the one part per ten thousand increase in CO2 over the past century is dangerous.) No group in the AMS survey came close to 97%, and among professional forecasters – less than half believed global warming is primarily man-made.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2016-01-15-05-21-43_shadow.jpg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

What little consensus there is, is based around intimidation of academics and censorship, as I detail in this video.

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

3. Academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades. All have failed miserably, yet they keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again. Had their forecasts been correct, we wouldn’t be here now to have this discussion.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2016-11-03-at-5_shadow.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017_06_30_09_29_46.gif
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

4. Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people. The graphs are generated through scientifically corrupt processes of data tampering and hiding data.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-25175052_shadow-1024x831.png

https://realclimatescience.com/the-five-top-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

[3]

A large amount of detail is provided in the blog posts below.

https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-collusion/
https://realclimatescience.com/extreme-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/
https://realclimatescience.com/extreme-wildfire-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/
https://realclimatescience.com/tripling-the-hockey-stick-fraud/
https://realclimatescience.com/fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment-part-1/
https://realclimatescience.com/fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment-part-2/

And climate models have shown zero skill, when compared against reliable tropospheric temperatures.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-11080638-1024x824.png
https://realclimatescience.com/failed-climate-models/

5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless. They were made without consulting engineers, and have zero chance of success. A robust discussion about our energy future is needed, but that discussion is censored in favor of propaganda.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/920x920_shadow.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-20204620_shadow-1024x903.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-19210847_shadow-844x1024.jpg
https://realclimatescience.com/the-malicious-intent-behind-climate-alarmism/

https://realclimatescience.com/the-five-top-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

[4]

We need to have a serious discussion about our energy future, but news agencies like the New York Times and the LA Times have an openly stated policy of censoring anyone with a dissenting opinion. This is dangerous, un-American and threatens our survival. Climate change is not an imminent threat, but the proposed solutions are.

If there was an actual climate crisis, it would be obvious. Alarmists wouldn’t have to hide and tamper with data.

>>14794076
>>14794073
>>14794072
>>14794068

Does anyone believe these posts were made by a real person

>>14794079
No, everyone knows you are a scripted paid shill.

>>14794063
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064924

>>14793952
>because they were not global events.
Wrong and disproved by all ice cores and tree proxies.

>>14793955
>>14793959
>>14793962
>>14793994
>>14793997
>>14794000
>>14794051
>>14794052
>>14794056
>>14794068
>>14794072
>>14794073
>>14794076
Get rekt, retard.

>>14794096
Cool virus link

>>14793981
>Let me know when you can explain why he lied to you about the NASA tenperature record
He didn't.

>>14794079
>>14794103
Deboonkers now proud that they can delete information that runs contrary to their narrative by calling a tranny to their defense.

>>14794102
Temperature reconstruction from all ice cores, tree rings, and other proxies show it was not global. Do you have an actual argument or are you just cherrypicking examples?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34759364/

>>14794106
He did. See >>14793820 and >>14793837

>>14794110
>spams copy and pasted blog posts
>cries and plays victim when his spam gets deleted

>>14793963
So not in your pants then?

>people are scared of the weather

>>14794124
No refutation of the facts?

>>14794128
I'll refute whatever you want if you don't spam.

See
>>14793820
>>14793870
>>14793911
>>14793952

When are you going to refute anything?

>>14786584
>By comparison still is undecided if the medieval, roman and minoan (bronze age) warm periods were warmer or similar to the current climate.
They weren't. See >>14794116

>>14793475
False, the hottest temperature ever recorded in the UK was this July.

>>14794178
Even with current temp data and proxy those approximations are mostly off when you compare results (global models) with measures directs or proxy (image).

>>14794178

Also, GTR models are not real measures. They have data bias assumptions bias.

>https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
>Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era - nature

>>14794186
Good. Cold sucks

>>14794378
The reconstructions are made from proxies, so how do they disagree? You're not making any sense.

>>14794407
>Also, GTR models are not real measures.
They are reconstructions from measures. Who claimed they are measures?

>They have data bias assumptions bias.
What does that mean?

>>https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/
What does this have to do with the reconstruction I posted? It does not use bucket data.

>>14794430
Record-breaking heat waves suck, and the alternative to that is not "cold." Why did you lie?

>>14794436
> You're not making any sense.
That is trivial to find 2 models than disagree considerably (science.1228026 with >>14794116) specially if one is over-extrapolate like the GISP (14786597) or use combined data.

See: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/

>>14794487
I never lied. Fuck off you piece of shit I’ll murder you.

>>14794507
So you didn't write "The hottest heatwave in UK history was in the 70s. You're just not old enough to remember."?

>>14794511
No that was some other fucker I didn’t get involved until >>14794430

>>14794506
>That is trivial to find 2 models than disagree considerably (science.1228026 with >>14794116)
If you read the paper, you'll see why the difference exists. It's mostly a scaling issue.

>specially if one is over-extrapolate like the GISP (14786597) or use combined data.
What do you mean? The only people I ever see claiming Greenland ice cores reflect global temperature are deniers. How does combining proxies cause the same issue?

>>14794516
Well that doesn't even make sense as a result, since the alternative to record-breaking heat waves is not "cold."

>>14794562
I definitely prefer warmer average temperatures over cold ones

>>14794559
" It's mostly a scaling issue."
Scaling dont change [math]\beta_1[/math] completely.

Change the data, the assumptions and you will get a completely different GRT, especially on local and time specific of the past. Articles on history use more direct methods to study local paleoclimate and its effects because GRT never give stable results between them. Yet even those aren't always reliable when compared with archeological data.

Also, many proxies and data series are periodically readjusted.
I don't care about global warming, much less in deny it or deniers. But throwing doi's is trivial.

>>14794572
I definitely don't care what you prefer.

>>14794644
Is this the new lie?

>>14794644
>Change the data, the assumptions and you will get a completely different GRT, especially on local and time specific of the past.
The reconstructions use similar data and are pretty similar, once you scale for global mean surface temperature. The question is, is there anything wrong in the data and assumptions?

>Also, many proxies and data series are periodically readjusted.
So?

>I don't care about global warming
Then why are you so desperate to dismiss the reconstructions?

>>14786256
Global warming will completely cease once economic collapse due to dwindling non-renewable resources sets in, so we're fucked... but not because of global warming.

And there won't be any worries about mass migrations without diesel and jet fuel to operate the ships and planes that facilitate the migration.

>>14794724
Whatever I say or cite is meaningless for you...

I guess that a contrarian could go even against the same page that used in first place.
>Nature: Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem

> Numerous studies have found that these high-sensitivity models do a poor job of reproducing historical temperatures over time4–7 and in simulating the climates of the distant past8.


Models are still overly simplistic (thats is why exists things like LandCover6k) to estimate global temperature of the distant past more so locally.

I'm not even talking on future.

>>14794754
>Global warming will completely cease once economic collapse due to dwindling non-renewable resources sets in
Doubtful. Warming doesn't immediately cease when emissions cease. It can continue for hundreds of years after.

>>14794729
>The reconstructions use similar data and are pretty similar, once you scale for global mean surface temperature. The question is, is there anything wrong in the data and assumptions?

Ok, that sounds very like a deep statistical analysis...

>Then why are you so desperate to dismiss the reconstructions?
Yes contrarian, even the authors of this article in nature are desperate to do that...

>Nature: Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem

>>14794760

>>14794762
Emissions completely ceasing right now is the best case scenario from a climate change perspective. That can't and won't happen without a global economic collapse, which is all but inevitable at this point... it's just a question of when.

The real tragedy is that at 1960/1970s emissions rates civilization could have endured for perhaps another century or two, and that much of the biosphere that is currently threatened by climate change likely would have had the time to adapt. The degree by which the "growth, prosperity, and jobs" cultists fucked over humanity and every other living creature on the planet cannot be understated.

>>14794779
>Ok, that sounds very like a deep statistical analysis
It is, which you would already know about if you read the Osman paper.

>Yes contrarian
?

>>Nature: Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem
What does CMIP have to do with paleo climate reconstructions? Another non sequitur. You just seem to post random articles without actually making an argument.

>>14794787
>The real tragedy is that at 1960/1970s emissions rates civilization could have endured for perhaps another century or two, and that much of the biosphere that is currently threatened by climate change likely would have had the time to adapt. The degree by which the "growth, prosperity, and jobs" cultists fucked over humanity and every other living creature on the planet cannot be understated.
In the 1960s/70s the world's most """brilliant""" minds thought we were headed for imminent climate collapse due to ice age by 2000. You could always just get your head out of your ass and accept that the weather isn't the climate and wait out the 10-20 year warm spell like every other generation did.

>>14794914
Have another beer and sleep it off, boomer. I tire of your constant self-serving lies.

>>14794938
You're a pseud blinded by propaganda and your own self-importance. Earth doesn't need you, and nothing you can do to it will have an impact on the balance of a cycle that operates on hundreds of orders of magnitude greater inputs.

>>14794914
>In the 1960s/70s the world's most """brilliant""" minds thought we were headed for imminent climate collapse due to ice age by 2000.
So now you're just making shit up.

>>14794914
>In the 1960s/70s the world's most """brilliant""" minds thought we were headed for imminent climate collapse due to ice age by 2000.
Wrong. See >>14793792

>>14794951
>nothing you can do to it will have an impact on the balance of a cycle that operates on hundreds of orders of magnitude greater inputs.
Which cycle is that exactly?

>>14795111
The one that goes up and down and up and down and up and now suddenly up again.

>>14795180
I don't know of any cycle that's going up this rapidly. Can you just answer the question by naming the cycle instead of vague descriptions?

>>14786504
surprise. they're just making this shit up

>>14795508
>pretending to not have common knowledge
>see, they're just making this up

How do we know dinosaurs existed? I'm sure no human is that old.

>>14786256
>we are ruining our planet the climate is getting hotter !!!!
source : it felt a bit hotter this morning

>>14795508
No, they're not. Most historical temperature measurements are sea temperature. These measurements were made all over the world and give us the average global temperature within a fraction of a degree.

>>14795533
Actual source: temperature measurements over 170 years.

>>14793475
Yeah but those temperatures were very rare back then, like once a decade rare.

Those temps are now a typical summer. Temps have consistently grown over the last 20 years and continue to grow each year.

>>14795556
We are literally fucked, unless Elon saves us.

>>14795556
What caused that spike in the late 1800s?

>>14795597
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml

>>14795597
Weather. Probably something about El Niño or something.

>>14795639
>>14795640
Kek

>>14793780
NASA isn't inside Berkley's band until 1950. At least one is biased or uncertainties are underreported.

>>14795969
>NASA isn't inside Berkley's band until 1950
I love it when deniers just straight up lie about publicly available data. It's the fastest way to show that they are full of shit.

>>14795969
Here's annual mean temperatures, well within the confidence interval.

>>14786256
>How fucked are we?
Extremely, but that's only part of the reason.
Last year was extremely concerning to me given the 49C temp in fucking Lutton, Canada. Oh and records elsewhere being recorded.

That's an absurd abnormality. It can't be a mere coincidence of environmental conditions.
Then you take into account that this year has only been mildly cooler so far and that was due to probably to the big volvanic blast in January (even still, constant 50+ in Basra and Iran this year suggests that it's not enough to buffer the heat well, even though the winter I'm in here in the southern hemisphere has been really chilly and wet - in fact extreme colds seem to follow patterns of extreme heat - climate oscillation amplification).

Then you also take into account the lack of solar activity we had in the 10s and you realise that 2021 was a taste of something really awful with this current cycle and those proceeding this one. We didn't really have a year in the past decade to compare, because the last cycle was pretty weak. If we were in a cycle like the 70's and 80s, we could have been in a serious global catastophe right now.

This doesn't seem fixable either. This is officially "shit is fucked" now atmospherically. Had I not had, personally, family and friends all over the planet right now recording their wildfires, I would have merely assumed the media was pulling some bullshit. But checking social media allows me to clarify the mainstream media's positions.

>>14796583
>That's an absurd abnormality. It can't be a mere coincidence of environmental conditions.
It was happening in 1909 too. It's just a coincidence.

>>14786321
We shouldn't, but we have no choice given the apparent long term oscillations that exist in geological data and ice cores and also to compare the change in our human environment.

It's clearly highly inaccurate before the 2nd world war. It's also increasingly becoming inaccurate in the recent decade or so because computer reliance has some flaws that weren't well managed and the change in infrastructure regimes has lead to a collapse and dissonance in our data sources.
Oh and modern models are being overused when manipulating this data. It's outrageous that climate scientists are manipulating empirical evidence for assumed agendas and standards. I've noticed the Australian Bureau, Japanese agencies and American agencies having more and more troubles with their data in recent years. I think the EU and China are just fucking things up with their standards obsession and the assumptions they are increasingly applying to historical data.

It also doesn't help when these orgs are getting less money from the government, who are preferring to ship money into strange esoteric fringe agencies and independent groups (how is that independent btw? It's literally government money). I think NGOs are a disgrace right now with climate lobbying and financial controls. Then you have the fuckery by financial institutions and people that are negatively impacted by accurate weather observations (those in the property market, those in the oil industry and, lately, those in renewable energy industries).
The latter is a new fucking problem. You should look around Las Vegas with it's Solar Panels. I bet those aren't helping environmental observations in that region now. Not to mention the oil and geothermal extraction occurring around there. The two enemies, petroleum and renewable energy industries, are now firmly in the same boat and it's obvious.

>>14793780
Those stevenson screens are ok, but they're not the greatest.
Looking at individual stations on the same station for over 100 years on BoM proved to me that we were getting better with records until the 80s, then automation and overviews of the data from then onward started to fuck with the consistency of that data and the reliability of that data.

So all we have now, in my opinion, is data between the 2nd world war to the 80s. Everything else is either archaic and poorly recorded or it's been poorly manipulated by modern tech.
But one thing is clear to me - the EU did not help this one bit. It's clear to me, after seeing patterns in data worldwide, that it's precisely when the EU became involved that our data started to have weird fuckery. The other problem is the automation and how it often needs maintenance to keep running. Past records are pretty good in the mid 20th century thanks to humans being the recorders of data or analog equipment being of importance there. Then we started to have gaps in months and days observed in the 90s around the time things were heavily automated and digitized.

>>14796606
No it's not, we've had a long term warming trend since the little ice age.
What concerns me though is the extremity of that observation at that latitude. That suggests an absurd situation atmospherically at that location, which can be quite easily explained with the decline of exhaust from transportation such as air travel and ship travel.

What we had at that moment in time was a severe lack of exhaust where we often would have it in recent times. That suggest potentially that the aerosol situation globally is far worse than we actually thought it was. Whereas those temps in the past were so rare and extreme they would normally not be observed in that region, here the natural atmostphere state to prevent it no longer exists.

I wonder how much worse UV data for 2020/21 was on the ground than what it was before it. That's how quick the climate changed. Mere months.
That rapid change in conditions has happened in the past, but only when things, such as eruptions, meteor strikes or large glacial lake outbursts, impact the environment rapidly. The only environmental factor that I can recognise in 20/21 was covid and the rapid change in our human environment.
It is an obvious reminder to just how much our planet's warmth relies on unnatural petroleum production - and I bet that scares the shit out of the renewable industry, while the petroleum industry just laughs at this problem that it caused which is now going to encourage more of it's use, not less.

>>14795556
>shows only last 200 years

This needs to stop.
To identify the current situation you need multiple scales of that same graph.
That way you can highlight the significance of the recent rise in temp. It's obviously human made, but we also need to educate people on the oscillations of our climate over many thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years. People do not understand that for every spike in a wave, there is a troft and for every troft a spike. The aggravating factor of the amplification of oscillations is utterly crucial to identifying how fucked we are. It acts like a catalyst for severe long term changes in environments.

Look a K/PG. Look at how a sudden change in the normal wave oscillations triggered the current difference in ambient weather on Earth between the Cretaceous and Cenozoic. That is what humanity has just done to it's planet in 10000 years, a small amount of time geologically.
This is probably one of the worst extinction events to happen on the Earth too.

>>14795591
I agree, space is clearly becoming less of a luxury and more like "our only hope".
But the problem is, the aristocracy will just use it to escape earth and commit scorched earth... quite literally.
Until the aristocratic administrative class is purged, humanity is doomed.

>>14786256
Our grand-children and great grand children will take climate change and global warming extremely more serious than we do and will fix the problem.

>>14795639
I don't think it's a coincidence that Krakatoa came shortly after that period. I'm thinking underwater volcanic activity and the chemical makeup of the ocean. We severely underestimate underwater volcanoes and their power to screw the oceans up. While modern tech is a bad polluter on a longer term, we still can't compete with volcanoes in terms of very rapid transmission of pollutants.

>>14796611
>It's clearly highly inaccurate before the 2nd world war.
Wrong, see >>14793780

>It's also increasingly becoming inaccurate in the recent decade or so
Wrong.

>because computer reliance has some flaws that weren't well managed and the change in infrastructure regimes has lead to a collapse and dissonance in our data sources.
Source?

>Oh and modern models are being overused when manipulating this data.
What models?

>>14796626
>Looking at individual stations on the same station for over 100 years on BoM proved to me that we were getting better with records until the 80s, then automation and overviews of the data from then onward started to fuck with the consistency of that data and the reliability of that data.
Based on what analysis? You sound like a LARPing schizo.

>>14786587
Why has there been a significant rise in amplitude of Earth's glacial cycles in the Pliocene and Pleistocene? That's a bit of an anomaly if that picture is accurate.

Isthmus of Panama formation?

>>14796685
>>shows only last 200 years
>This needs to stop.
That's the extent of the global instrument instrumental record. You need to stop whining over data being the way it is.

>To identify the current situation you need multiple scales of that same graph.
I actually don't, since the claim I was defending was that "the climate is getting hotter."

>It's obviously human made, but we also need to educate people on the oscillations of our climate over many thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
See >>14794116. We don't have high resolution reconstructions on larger scales than that to make a direct comparison to current warming. So at best we can say that the climate has been oscillating for the past few million years in a similar manner to the interglacial warming seen 10,000 years ago. And beyond that there is a cycle of ice ages and hothouse climates. Neither operate on timescales small enough to explain current warming.

>>14789086
Both of them market their products to audiences. I think their opinions are irrelevant, if not a symptom of the problem here.

>>14786256
Shut the fuck up already, you fucking chicken little

>>14796685
Here you go. Notice how the climate was stable until the industrial revolution when we burned so much carbon that had been removed from the carbon cycle that we changed the composition of the atmosphere. I can post a graph of the change in carbon isotopes over the last 1000 years if you need more evidence that it was all the fuel we burned that caused the changes in our atmosphere.

>>14796685
>>14796768
Wrong graph. Here you go.

>>14796733
There hasn't been analysis.
Which is precisely the problem. Scientists are blatantly ignoring the problems with software and hardware errors and systematic changes in weather observations in the past couple decades.

They've fucked our data up. They're quite obvious as a problem if you were into programming and computer hardware, which I am into lately. The problems with code reliability and digitisation is quite significant.

But I have, out of mere curiosity, happened to look at records in many countries and noticed this similar pattern that is very obvious and understandable given the technological context.
Oh and then I also glanced at some NGO standards that are being enforced politically globally and how that is completely blinded to this issue and is now being enforced over the democratic interests of some of these countries.

>>14796698
>I don't think it's a coincidence that Krakatoa came shortly after that period.
I think it is. If anything volcanic works would influence ENSO, not the other way around.

>>14796775
>There hasn't been analysis.
But that's wrong. There has been plenty.

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers-climate-science/

>Scientists are blatantly ignoring the problems
In order to ignore them, they would have to exist in the first place. Problems with missing data, station moves, and TOBs are much more prevalent in the past and aren't ignored.

>But I have, out of mere curiosity, happened to look at records in many countries and noticed this similar pattern that is very obvious and understandable given the technological context.
Another vague description. What days did you look at? What metric did you use?

>Oh and then I also glanced at some NGO standards that are being enforced politically globally and how that is completely blinded to this issue and is now being enforced over the democratic interests of some of these countries.
Like what?

>>14796776
What I'm suggesting is that Krakatoa came immediately after a pulse of volcanic/tectonic activity that may have started in the late 1870s and likely nowhere near Krakatoa.
Why am I thinking "solar cycles" and magnetopause? We all should know by now that the sun's solar wind causes a lot of our tectonic activity.
Btw, there was a troft precisely around the time of that "expected activity".
Strangely, Krakatoa would be the anomaly perhaps there. But there certainly were the conditions for volcanic activity at the time of that el nino.

Also explains why el ninos/la ninas are pretty regular, don't you think?

>>14796793
>http://berkeleyearth.org/papers-climate-science/
>many of them are from Nature

Almost had me there. Nature is a garbage journalistic source. It's clearly there for one purpose and that is whatever the administrative elite wants to lobby.
Maybe I need to compile all my Nature related screencaps, because I found that resource hilariously biased.

>>14796820
I mean just look at the gaps in data for one of the most used rainfall gauges in the world.
And look at the timing of when that data begins to deteriorate with modern statistical dementia.

>>14796834
What?
2 in 2 different major state capitals at around the same time?
Huh?
What is going on here?

I've seen this in many bureau sites globally, it's not just Aus.
A lot of the older stations were actually replaced entirely around a similar time to be replaced with the "more accurate" modern system in line with global standards.

The EU is fucking evil.

>>14796811
>What I'm suggesting is that Krakatoa came immediately after a pulse of volcanic/tectonic activity that may have started in the late 1870s and likely nowhere near Krakatoa.
There doesn't seem to be a consistent correlation in the paleoclimate data. It's purely theoretical.

>Why am I thinking "solar cycles" and magnetopause?
Because you're LARPing.

>We all should know by now that the sun's solar wind causes a lot of our tectonic activity.
Oh really? Based on what?

>>14796843
This one had some expected irregularity in the 1800s, but then improved and became consistent right up to the 00s, when clearly the meth really kicked in or something.

But anyway, 3 of the most important gauges in 3 separate states.

>>14796820
>Nature is a garbage journalistic source.
Attacking the journal (not even the author) is not an argument. Try again.

>>14796834
>rainfall
Do you have ADHD? Try to stay on topic.

>>14796856
I think it was this article that proved how shit Nature is.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21369
Which is debunked completely because you literally cannot determine autism for children at such an early age.

I can't remember what I discovered when I dug into who owned Nature and who published in it. But I remember it was proof it was a shill organisation.
Looking into it again as we speak.
There are many "journalistic resources" like this that are thinly disguised shill rackets to shill for the protection racket trying to coordinate these resources for financial benefit.

>>14796862
>rainfall is not related to climate or temperature calculations
are you trolling now?

>>14796820
Nature is unironically one of the most respected and widely read and cited journals in the entire world of all time. Is this satire?

>>14796884
>I think it was this article that proved how shit Nature is.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21369
Non sequitur. Explain how the papers I gave you are shit.

>rainfall is not related to climate or temperature calculations
Who are you quoting? You were supposed to show temperature measurements are getting worse.

You honestly sound deranged.

>>14796887
No, it's mental illness slowly being revealed to us as each post gets more desperate and ridiculous.

>>14796887
Are you kidding me?
It's trash.
If our world believes the crap that Nature provides, we're doomed.

It's not a real journalistic resource from memory, just a cleverly disguised psuedo-journal source.

>>14796811
>solar cycles
Lol no.

>>14796893
>Who are you quoting? You were supposed to show temperature measurements are getting worse.
I'm quoting the anon who asked why I mentioned rainfall and who suggested it was off topic.
All I was meant to show was how standards on data is becoming inaccurate and suffering from data dementia.
And I proved it was blatantly obvious too.

But in reality I was also on topic with regard to temperature too, if you don't remember your thermodynamics too well and the importance of rainfall in establishing temperature.
Rainfall is tied to statistical models used by various organisations to modify their data on temperature too. Humidity is incredibly important to analysing where gaps in data do occur. You should already know how rainfall and humidity impacts temperature. If you don't, you are naive on the topic of temperature and climate change.
But when gaps in data are caused by technical malfunction, we have an obvious problem, don't we? And when data is also being tailored to said failing systems and their own data - the problem is exaggerated further.

So that is why I was on topic and why I was talking about rainfall and showing obvious data problems with it in modern data readings.

>>14796939
>I'm quoting the anon who asked why I mentioned rainfall
No you're not. That quote was first written in your post. You made it up.

>All I was meant to show was how standards on data is becoming inaccurate and suffering from data dementia.
You didn't show that.

>But in reality I was also on topic with regard to temperature too, if you don't remember your thermodynamics too well and the importance of rainfall in establishing temperature.
So to be clear, you're saying temperature wasn't recorded when rainfall wasn't recorded. That's your argument right? Well that's wrong. Do you know what clanging is? That's what you're doing.

There is clearly no issue with the temperature data. If there was you would have shown it instead of rainfall measurements.

>>14796906
There is a distinct difference between radiance and a sunspot.
I chose the latter as an indicator of sudden solar activity more likely to induce "burst-like" behaviour that is likely to influence plate tectonics.

But regardless, neither seem to influence that pattern.
In fact, El Nino is probably irrelevant.

Look at how weak that El-Nino was?
We've had far worse ones.

>>14796961
What quote are you even talking about?

>>14792312
>>14789065
>op presents bad data
>me calling it out is my fault for not having good data on standby
yeah sure anon, ill get in my time machine real quick

>>14796961
>So to be clear, you're saying temperature wasn't recorded when rainfall wasn't recorded. That's your argument right? Well that's wrong. Do you know what clanging is? That's what you're doing.
Well explain why there are so many rainfall irregularities at precisely that period?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging
>In psychology and psychiatry, clanging or clang association refers to a mode of speech characterized by association of words based upon sound rather than concepts.
And you're spinning me in a toxic cycle of abuse, if we want to play the irrelevant psychiatric bullshit game.


I'm just pointing out a prima facie observation. It's not a scientific journal, but I do see this shit regularly and they are my own observations with real examples from real weather data sites. I've seen this for years all over this and by looking at the big picture you might be able to address an issue that is not being talked about enough in the context of climate change - technological errors.
And instead of addressing it, you're calling me a psycho now.

>There is clearly no issue with the temperature data. If there was you would have shown it instead of rainfall measurements.
I'm saying it is temperature data, you just didn't know how it can be temperature data nowadays.
Rainfall, atmospheric pressure, tides, etc, etc, are all used to construct your temperature data used in climate research papers. If you have a flaw in one space and regularly, that means the temperature data will be misconstrued over time.
Also, I am now looking for cases where temperature has had error too. Because I've seen that too.

Also I like how Joe Biden has install a new independent organisation separate from NOAA on climate extremes in recent months. I didn't think it was anything, but looking at this thread, clearly it is if people are that agitated by the idea of their hardware and software failing them with climate data.
I haven't even gotten into the hacking side of things.

>>14786270
South America is absolutely not going to be uninhabitable lol

>>14786536
>All that information is available online, Anon.
>If you cared about it, you would have found it by now.
Funny you should say this. Why is publicly funded data now behind a paywall to the public now? I noticed this on BoM, but it exists on most platforms for weather globally, especially in Europe.
Sure there are snippets of data when you dig deep, but you have to really fucking dig to find good graphs, maps and relevant data.
There are metadata sources, but often they require logins and subscriptions.

All that for a publicly funded resource.
Why do people pay taxes for the administrative elite's access of resources?

>>14797028
>South America is absolutely not going to be uninhabitable lol
Try telling Venezualans that.

>>14797037
>Why is publicly funded data now behind a paywall to the public now?
Is it?

>>14796611
You have no idea how any of this works and your argument is nonsense. Weather station data agrees with satellite observations as well as fast accumulation proxies like corals

>>14797001
>There is a distinct difference between radiance and a sunspot.
Yes, one is directly responsible for the temperature on earth, and the other one is an easy to see proxy for solar activity.

>>14797037
It’s not though
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

>>14797005
See >>14796884
>rainfall is not related to climate or temperature calculations

>>14797053
It's not temperature that is important with solar activity in this context. I was referring to the physical impact of the solar wind - i.e. the mechanical force of it and the stress it creates on the planet's tectonics. That tectonic stress would inevitably lead to volcanic activity, altering the ocean's chemistry.
There's a minor bit of correlation, but it's probably not enough to predict the el nino effectively. There's too much irregularity and noise with the el nino pattern. But it's clear somewhat relevant, just not as much as I thought. There does seem to be an el nino precisely just before when the run up of the solar cycle occurs. But sometimes it varies between one or two pulses.

>>14797061
He didn't directly stipulate, he literally
>implied
it here >>14796862.
Are you new here?

And then he tried to bring the issue of relevance into play while at the same time babbling about something psychiatry related or some shit.

>>14797027
>Well explain why there are so many rainfall irregularities at precisely that period?
I don't need to, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Ask BoM. It's probably on their website already.

>I'm just pointing out a prima facie observation
Then why won't you show what you observed?

>I'm saying it is temperature data
But it's not. It's rainfall. You're grasping at straws.

>Rainfall, atmospheric pressure, tides, etc, etc, are all used to construct your temperature data used in climate research papers
No, I'm pretty sure they just use the thermometer record, which you claimed is inaccurate. But you clearly have no basis for this claim so you're trying to distract with some other record. Just stop.

>>14797056
https://reg.bom.gov.au/other/charges.shtml
It literally is.
Not just private institutions, this is a public institution behind a fucking paywall.

If you deliberately only provide scraps that can be compiled and then hide the compilations behind a fee - that's a paywall as you are saying "pay for this or waste your time compiling all this data yourself".
It should be easily accessible and searchable online in this day and age, exploiting the public interface available (the internet) to it's full potential as per it's duties as a public institution.
Instead it hides it behind a paywall.

Most public infrastructure is doing this nowadays and public funding is being misappropriated by administrative bigots in government.

>>14797068
>he literally
>>implied
>it here >>14796862
No, nowhere does that imply rainfall is not somehow related to temperature. It implies rainfall measurements are not what was being discussed. Learn how to read.

>>14797075
>I don't need to
Yes you do. It's at the core of climate change models and averages.
Quit fucking around and prove why the data is being fucked with dude or you're just a shill at this stage or as good as a shill at this stage.

It takes like 10th grade physics to recognise why rainfall can be relevant to the subject of temperature data. Surely you've done that much right?
Ever heard of apparent temperature?
Wet bulb?

>>14797075
>No, I'm pretty sure they just use the thermometer record
Oh wait, now I see the problem.
You think they use thermometers for climate change discussion.

No they don't, they talk in terms of MODELS.
The concept of climate change is a model-based concept, not an empirical concept.

My mistake.
I thought you knew that already.

>>14797093
Actually it's worse than that. It's more of an algorithm that is constantly updating itself with itself.
It's obviously spiralling nowadays, but in the past, before people tampered with their AVERAGES according to "taking out anomalies and poor data not aligned with modern conceptual frameworks", it was actually somewhat competent at showing a rise in temperature changes globally.

That was back when they used an untampered smaller pool of data and a far more simplified model to make a conclusion on the topic of climate change. Those days are truly gone as our data is being deliberately fucked with for the sake of meeting globalist NGO standards.

Welcome to hell. Population: (you).

>>14797086
>Yes you do. It's at the core of climate change models and averages.
Is it at the core of thermometer measurements? No.

>Quit fucking around and prove why the data is being fucked with
I've seen zero evidence that it is, schizo.

>>14797103
>Is it at the core of thermometer measurements? No.
If only you knew how bad things really are.

>>14797086
>>14797093
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. You are mixing instrumental datasets with modeling which are very different things
>>14797078
For the relevant data of this discussion, it's all publicly available from all of the major instrumental temperature products, NOAA, BE, HADCRUT, and the Japanese one. I don't know why Australian data is behind paywalls but it looks like specialized information for weather forecasting

>>14797093
>Oh wait, now I see the problem.
>You think they use thermometers for climate change discussion.
Well they do.

>No they don't, they talk in terms of MODELS.
Sometimes. And sometimes they talk about the thermometer record. It's not either or.

>The concept of climate change is a model-based concept, not an empirical concept.
But that's wrong, retard. Climate change is empirically observed. One of those observations is the thermometer record.

You're just making shit up. You're a LARPer. It's a waste of time responding to you. Enjoy your mental illness.

>>14797109
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14797110
Just stop responding to him, he's a deranged conspiracy theorist who thinks his delusions are facts.

>>14797109
>>14797086
These are tools for wether forecasting. You seem confused to what your point even is.
>>14797101
>the data is fake because of my conspiracy theories

>>14797110
>You are mixing instrumental datasets with modelling which are very different things
see >>14797109
They literally cherrypick "anomalous data".
This is probably why data has been disappearing in those rainfall records.

So the question is, "how can we see the problem in front of us with failing eyesight and phantom data?"
The answer is, you can't. It's the devil's game now (well until we figure out the kinks at least).

>>14797113
>Well they do.
Well partially, data is recorded by them, only to be ignored by the readers who then decide it's "irrelevant" much like you've been saying to me throughout this thread might I add.

>>14797115
>>14797118
Go fuck yourself, globalist scum.
You all deserve the rope for fucking with empirical data records for your agenda.

>>14797119
>These are tools for wether forecasting.
Which is precisely what climate change is.
It's a forecast. A prediction.
You're very funny. You're complaining I don't understand anything, when you don't even linguistically understand what the concept of "climate change" encapsulates.

>>14797065
>I was referring to the physical impact of the solar wind - i.e. the mechanical force of it and the stress it creates on the planet's tectonics. That tectonic stress would inevitably lead to volcanic activity, altering the ocean's chemistry.
Is this based even loosely on reality? I've never heard of any force on the tectonics.

>>14797128
Anthropogenic warming is directly observed in the temperature instrumental record, satellite and proxy data. Just because there's a handful of malfunctioning rain gauges doesn't mean those observations of hundreds of thousands of other stations are wrong

>>14797128
>Which is precisely what climate change is.
>It's a forecast.
Neither is climate change a forecast, nor is climate weather.

>>14797065
Tectonics affect climate and ocean chemistry on the order of tens of millions of years and are certainly not related to the solar wind.

>>14797128
Stupid Satania poster

>>14797133
There is a physical force when two mediums collide. It's well known amongst geo-physical scientists that flares and CMEs can influence tectonic behaviour.

You can see this influence the greatest at the pause between mediums, especially in a flare or CME.
That's not taking into account the other electromagnetic forces at play on the earth's atmosphere, crust and core when a flare or CME strikes Earth.

Climate is NOT a mere atmospheric problem. It goes into geology and astrophysics greatly. To me, the earth's atmosphere is a vague concept really. Our reality is not like how many people think of our atmosphere with "nothing beyond it".
And there are exchanged influences between the Heliosphere, space weather and space climate and our own climate on earth.
There is also a massive subterranean "climate" we have been ignoring for decades in much of our science too.

>>14797145
Now look what you've done, she's crying.
Bully!

>>14797154
>flares and CMEs can influence tectonic behaviour.
Really? Can I read about this?

>>14797154
>It's well known amongst geo-physical scientists
I'm not a geo-physical scientist, so can you maybe point me to a place where I can read more about that?

>>14797135
>Anthropogenic warming is directly observed in the temperature instrumental record, satellite and proxy data. Just because there's a handful of malfunctioning rain gauges doesn't mean those observations of hundreds of thousands of other stations are wrong
And I'm telling you, those days are over.
When I was a kid that was perhaps more accurate, but those days are well and truly over as there is clearly standards being enforced which suggest to bureaus to alter and tamper with their temperature data for "outlying data" while at the same time very little is being done concerning the inevitable gaps in various forms of data.

I only posted rainfall because that was the most obvious form of data error in a modern tech world that I have seen. I have seen literal examples of missing data in daily temperature records, some of them extremely suspicious even. I just didn't cap them or have the source of that on hand. I'm not a fucking bureau worker, that should be their fucking job, not mine.

Anyway, the interplay between the concepts of rainfall, atm pressure, etc, etc with temperature is obvious in any forecasting model in any bureau. In fact, those models are now being used to alter real time records as they are being made if they are not according to algorithm.
It's seriously scary shit and I wouldn't recommend going down those rabbit holes, but hey, it doesn't seem like our bureaus or students in universities are going down them, so someone has to right?
Or maybe they are and we're just never hearing about them?

>>14797163
Yes. It's called "fucking google i-" actually I wouldn't recommend google.
Try all search engines except google for that one, unless you want nothing but ads.

>>14797163
>>14797167

https://www.google.com/search?q=Magnetosphere+earthquakes&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi58Iuvkuj5AhV5-DgGHXLrApEQ7xYoAHoECAEQNQ&biw=1278&bih=1288

There's heaps of crap on it.
I mean think about it, the earth doesn't just decide to quake. Something outside influences it.
Astro-determinism? Is that a term? It should be one.

Also, be aware of property prices and how they are influenced by climate data.
Then be aware of how many financial institutions rely on such assets and their stability in the market.

That is why our data, especially after 2008, is so fucked now.
It's not even the petroleum industry alone now. It's literally at the core of national strategy and finance now. We are so fucked.

>>14797001
Bullshit.

>>14797258
I might read that explanation posted by an anon on why scientists think it was an el nino, but it wouldn't be that shocking to me. You're dealing with the interference of many "waves" of many factors that could influence temperature. There's a significant amount of noise there because of natural chaotic interference with these waves.
But perhaps there is a pattern there somewhere that I've missed from merely, as an amateur, looking at climate data as a mere hobby (mainly because I wanted to see just how much the finance fallout here >>14797222 would fuck with things in climate science). I feel so terrible for climate scientists for having to deal with the bullshit of the finance industry now and dealing with the inevitable blowback PR wise (doctors feeling the same shit nowadays too).

When I heard Trump say that he didn't know what a cat 5 hurricane was, I knew we were fucked in our finance industry.

>>14793952
The problem are the anomalies and a lot of anomalies are tied to another anomaly (el nino modoki) . Im so lazy... i have to post that graph...soon, i hope u join anons

>>14796759
If the climate had warmed as fast as it now it would be plainly visible even in lower resolution (200years resolution) reconstructions like long term ice cores, not just in the ones spanning the last glacial maximum and the modern times.

>>14797608
The temperatures are being faked, that's why it looks so abrupt.

>>14786256
Get this paying more taxes, and importing more shitskins will stop global warming!

>>14797273
Bullshit

>>14797399
>The problem are the anomalies
What problem?

>>14797608
>long term ice cores
The only problem is that doesn't show global temperature, just temperature where there has been lots of ice.