The historic data on Arctic sea ice extent had been severely altered to fit the global warming narrative. This gif shows the data before and after it was changed.
so there is substantially more polar sea ice now than there was in 1970. how do global warming enthusiasts explain this? why is it that after 54 years of so-called global warming the amount of ice in the arctic ocean has increased?
>>15990438What are global warming enthusiasts? People who enjoy global warming? Oil companies?
>>15990420There is our daily Tony Heller repost. Didn't even bother to change the filename.And here's the daily reminder that Tony Heller is funded by the fossil fuel industry.
>>15990438Easy. Equatorial regions are warming faster than the poles are cooling. By so much that everywhere will be a desert by 2050. Understand?
>>15990448>funded by the fossil fuel industry.Can you be any more specific? Also, is there anything wrong with the claim made? You're attempting to poison the well instead of refuting a simple argument based on governments own data. Why?
>>15990450https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/
>>15990420Maybe they did fraudulently change it to suit some narrative. But you know that when new data is collected about things that happened in the past we have to update our existing past data if differences are discovered. This happens all the time. Some place will do some big new study that shows our original understanding was wrong and then we incorporate that new data into the models and charts etc to reflect those changes
>>15990476I already read that between the time I read your post and you googled that without properly vetting it. All it says is he was in an email chain with multiple climate change skeptics (17 listed), and links to another article about said email. The linked article states that "many" of the people on the email chain had ties to tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries. Nowhere does it claim Tony/Steve has any of those ties. Either you knew he didn't and lied, or you regurgitated information you've seen before without vetting it, or you truly read that link and its associated citations and didn't understand it. Which is it?
>>15990499It gives many more examples. Are you too lazy to look into that or are you lying?>Tony Heller moderated a discussion panel sponsored by the CO2 Coalition [Marshall institute, i.e. Exxon-Mobil]>Steven Goddard is a climate science denier, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat [funded by the Heartland institute, i.e. Koch brothers]Just open your eyes.
>>15990508The oil companies that currently fund green energy research, to rake in huge government subsidies? Those oil companies?
>>15990516If you think that objective, verifiable facts are schizophrenia, then you might be in need of medication.
>>15990508Let's apply your reasoning to 4chan. jannies who moderate 4channel FOR FREE are under the payroll of Hiro? Since both you and I regularly contribute to posts on 4chan, we're under the payroll of Hiro? I don't get paid to post here. Do you?
>>15990520What makes you think that Heller does all that work for free?
>>15990524He's an electrical engineer you dunce. He's extremely busy with his six figures job. He doesn't need the money. I do, however question why you would do all this shilling for free on 4chan. It's more likely you're under a pay roll than Tony is.
>>15990518You're the one with the conspiracy theory that ignores the fact these EEEEEVVILLLL oil companies as we speak agree with the proposition that humans are altering the climate and that they should pursue green energy for long term economic viability.And fat government checks, but what's a little cash between cronies, right?
>>15990526>He's extremely busy with his six figures jobLet me guys, his job goes to another school in Canada?The guy posts several blog posts per day, makes almost daily YouTube videos, is quite active on Twitter and other social media. What six-figure job allows you to be this prolific on the side?
>>15990448https://co2coalition.org/teammember/tony-heller/seems a good fellow to me
>>15990529https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/
>>15990530what does that have to do with his cv
>>15990536What does his CV have to do with what hes paid to say?>>15990527It's entirely self consistent for oil companies to invest in the future they know objectively to be correct while trying to convince the public that it's not happening because both of those activities make them money. CEO of mickey d's doesn't eat in his own restaurants, doesn't mean he doesn't want you to do so.
>>15990578>CEO of mickey d's doesn't eat in his own restaurantsProof?
>>15990527If the oil industry didn't know global warming was real, they wouldn't feel the need to spend money on propagandists like Heller or Watts.
>>15990420
>>15990420That really fails as Here tried to make it clearer to understandpng
>>15990635kek
>km^6guy didn't even bother faking his graph right
>>15990660Kek busted
>>15990638>>15990660Lmao I'm all for faking data to spread disinformation here; I've done it multiple times because fuxk the ivory tower. At least dot your i's and cross your t's to avoid getting absolutely blown the fuck out like this. Well done.
>>15990660lmao chuds BTFO
>>15990660
>>15990635
>>15990660Rare climate science W
>>15990804You look like this?
>>15990617
>>15990660meaninglessfind the actual paper and the actual source graph
>>15990984oh, this is the same paper as the ridiculous hockey stick graph
>>15990984I actually did try that, couldn't find either. Not saying they don't exist, just saying that just by writing ICPP with big letters in paint isn't actually linking the source.
>>15990986
>>15991746Why are you conflating Europe temp reconstruction with global temperatures?
>>15990528consulting
>>15991784He "consults" Exxon-mobil for a flat rate? And let me guess, if he were to quit his blog and YouTube channel, they'd end the contract?
>>15991794>attacking the source because you can't attack the central point of the argument pretty much admitting he is right
>>15991911The graph is just fake though, the fact that it's made by an oil shill is just icing on the cake
>>15992052Honestly I agree with him, but that's because both sides of the uniparty red and blue are legitimately evil and both need sacrificing to the tree of liberty
>>15990896why did jannie move that thread to /b/? it was a perfectly good thread about science
>>15990420They've altered the historical temperature records and the historical polar ice records, and the historical sea level records, so its safe to assume that they're also altering all other significant historical records related to this issue, which includes the historical record of atmospheric CO2 levels. Odds are better than even that there is no more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was in 1800
>>15990449They used to say the poles were warming 2x as fast. This is too much of a joke science.
>>15994866Who?
>>15991911So Mann's results are correct because people attack him instead?>>15992052>>15991746 Further, you seem to think that pointing out that data which is claimed to represent one thing doesn't match with other datasets of that same thing just proves that the first dataset is correct and all the rest are wrong.>>15990420Altered metric claimed as data manipulation.>>15990635Climate of Europe being claimed as global climate.>>15991746Climate of Europe being compared to global climate to assert global climate is wrong.Stop buying into retard-tier propaganda paid for by oil companies.
>>15996417projectionglobal warming is energy company propaganda, thats why occidental petroleum's ownership is leading the global warming propaganda campaign
>>15996889>projectionI don't think you know what that means. You should try doing something other than making baseless claims.
>>15990896Good screencap, very worth reading
>>15994845Sounds like communism but now everything is digital
>>15998112that makes altering records easier
>>15990420Not only do they make the past seem cooler to create the illusion of global warming, they also exaggerate and lie about how warm the present is whenever possible
>>15994845>dude gas concentration measurements are a conspiracy Flat earth tier argument
>>16000457>energy corporations spend millions to convince people that climate change isn't happening!>please ignore those same energy corporations spend billions in green energy investments>also ignore all of the subsidies provided to the government that wouldn't exist if there wasn't a world ending emergency>The sky is falling! Evil People just want you to remain ignorant!Pseudoscientific argument. Please provide accurate climate models that did not need to be abandoned later when the science "evolved".
>>15996889Prove it.
>>16000403You're right. Everyone who believes this should boycott the vote. It doesn't matter who gets elected anyway, amirite?
>>16000615I'm sorry. Have you provided an accurate climate model yet?
>>16000664Define accurate after you've taken your meds.
>>16000684"Accurate" meaning "falsifiable and does not need to be revised every few years because it turns out its predictions were wrong but don't worry the science has evolved and here is new model, please ignore old model, it's no pseudoscience we promise".But you can't do that because you fuckers are worse than UFO religions.
>>16000688>falsifiableAre any of the models not falsifiable? Predictions are by definition falsifiable.>does not need to be revised every few years because it turns out its predictions were wrongSo, what do you mean by wrong? Let's say you have a predictor for a quantity x. Your prediction is 13753.7, but the true value turns out to be 13753.8. Was your prediction wrong? Is a model that's "learning", i.e. incorporating past predictions and observations bad because it's constantly being revised? What's your proposed alternative?
>>16000699>Are any of the models not falsifiable? Predictions are by definition falsifiable.They're not falsifiable because failed predictions are ignored and only the latest models are considered to be the only models that have ever existed.This is like saying that a doomsayer's prediction of the world ending in 2012 is falsifiable despite the prediction failing and the doomsayer saying that he got the date wrong and the 'real' 2012 is in 2022. Oh wait, 2032. This time, for sure.
>>15993079becoming political is not /sci/ related>>15997641not reallyIf you can't see that "personal profit above all" is killing society, and the idea of employee-staked companies is a good move to spread wealth, you've got some thinking to do.
>>16000703So you're saying that no model is falsified because a claim on a sign at a tourist's site was proven false? Please explain to the rest of the class what you think "falsifiable" means.
>>16000717>IGNORE THE PART ABOUT 'COMPUTER MODELS', IT'S A TOURIST SIGN! NOBODY ACTUALLY SAID IT! AND IF THEY DID, IT WAS NOBODY SERIOUS! JUST THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN FUCKING SCIENTISTS!
>>16000717>>16000723https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/53/2/131/254976This not good enough for you?They changed the date, of course. History is always being rewritten, good thing we have photo evidence. And by 2030, they'll change the date again. And again. And again.And you'll sit here demanding proof.
The Truth About Climate Changehttps://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.
>>16000723I can say that computer models tell me that you're a faggot. Do you treat this as a scientific disvovery as well?
>>16000703How do people buy into this shit?
>>16002665total losers who have nothing going for them fantasize about becoming relevant and respected, so they're prone to savior complex fantasies and the global warming hoax plays on that aspect of their personality perfectly as it was intended to when the scam was initially designed
>>15990530>desmog.comPolitical propaganda outlet run by a former Huffington Post journalist, not a valid source of scientific information.
>>16006008>it’s a guy I don’t like Wow, good argument.
>>16006018Climate change deniers>it’s a guy I don’t like>Wow, good argument.Also climate change deniers>The government is lying because Al Gore owns a company!
>>15990420they swapped the two and the six, why?
>>15990420If global warming is real then how come there was less sea ice in 1970 than there is now?
>>16006905How much less is there now than in 1970?
>>16006938a lot less according to the data in OP
>>16006905It's definitely not part of a long term trend.
>>16007627I don't know what the unit [math]\mathrm{km}^6[/math] describes, but it's surely not a reasonable quantity.
>>16007636if you're too dumb to understand scientific notation then you shouldn't be posting on this board
>>15990449It's okay because the world will be underwater by the year 2012
>>15990449warmth causes rain tho, antarctica has the lowest precipitation rate of anywhere on the planet
>>16008992Lol ironic.
>>16000741Undisputed and true.
>>15990638>transdimensional icecaps
>>16009897you're too dumb to understand scientific notation, you shouldn't be posting on this board
>>16013380Explain it then. Why change the metric completely and then assert that the data is false because it doesn't match the new metric? I eagerly await whatever mental abortion you come up with.
>>16014666t. retard
>>16014666If only we'd kill incels
Why hasn't anyone simply compared the source documents from the reports?I found one of them in less than a minute.When did /sci/ become this lazy?
>>16014935Nobody needs to. It's very clear how the metric was altered to make it seem like there's a discrepancy. They didn't even change the units afterwards.
>>15999014Okay, I've seen enough of these placements for it to be clear they're doing this on purpose. I'm supposed to believe they all just "accidentally" placed them behind air conditioners and raised the pole height to be closer to an asphalt shingle roof?
>>16016478It doesn't matter. Urban heat island effects are controlled for and every station shows the same upward trend. If the issue were just that some stations read hotter than others then you'd see a flat line, not a line with a positive slope.
>>16016484Don't try to bullshit me. I'm a scientist. I know the tricks your false gods play with statistics and data to get the results they want.
>>16016487No, you're not, and you never will be.
>>16016487YWNBAS
>>16016488snoop quit weed, endorsed trump and is now promoting healthy living, his next album of going to be christian gospel
>>16016546Nice to see something positive from him for a change.
>>16004120Same reason they self insert as MC in marve movies
>>16016488Actually, it's worse. They say the same things and nothing ever changes.
>>16018397they modify their lies depending on whatever recent circumstances occurred. the fact that they have to do that demonstrates their inability to predict the future which in turn proves that their claimed knowledge of future climatic activity is a lie
>>16018786>its cold = global warming>its hot = global warming>hurricanes = global warming>no hurricanes = global warming>drought = global warming>floods = global warming>average rainfall = global warming>day ends in y = global warming
>>16018397>>16018786>>16019730>Imagine being this retarded
>>16019733>imagine being so mean
>>16020252I don't give a shit about your feelings.
>>16020270incel alert
>>16019730https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap
>>16021283>Kafkatrap
>>16019730>>16021283
>>16021283Who is paying you, big oil or Trump?
>>16021478Do you ask this of scientists openly lying about shit generally or just when it threatens the democrat party narratives?
>>16019730>>16021283>>16021459Take your meds
>>16021598I accept your concession.
>>16021553Scientists by definition cannot lie. If they did, they're not real scientists.
>>16021646You need to accept your meds.
>>16021672
>>16017120he has a lot to atone for after decades of getting rich by shilling degeneracy on his own people. good luck to him
>>16023847Big oil, then.
>>15990526
>>15992952based
>>16028421Funny how the U.N. isn't policing american elections to make sure shenanigans aren't occurring like they do in other third world countries.
>>16028727You're actually wrong, the UN is going to have election monitors in many Republican states after accusations of racially motivated suppression.
>>16028730I'll believe it when I see it. The mid satan historically has banned UN observers at elections because that lets the dems steal elections like they did for the "greatest president of all time".
>>15990660fucking this, lmao wtf.
>>16029645You keep confidently repeating this garbage but "km^6" isn't the correct notation, you moron. It doesn't even match the notation in the first graph it's being compared to. It's pretty obvious what happened too: the imbecile who fabricated this graph just accidentally switched up the two exponents when fabricating the second graph. No idea why he just didn't bother copy-pasting the title, kek.
>>15990448>Tony Heller is funded by the fossil fuel industry.classic ad hominem. who do you expect to uncover the cheating, Greta the Terrible?
>>15990439The faster the arctic becomes ice free the faster we get 20% increased shipping efficiencies from China to Europe, like imagine having a real economic boom at like 12% interest rates
>>16030492Thats the only thing they ever have to say about Tony, they can never dispute any of his scientific evidence.
>>15990420Wasnt it like another ice age being the thing they screamed about as climate change in the 60s and 70s?
>>16031567>scientific evidence
>>16032511
>>16033509the science has changed
>>16030445>i can't read scientific notation
>>16034939Way to out yourself, pseud.
>>15990438>why is it that after 54 years of so-called global warming the amount of ice in the arctic ocean has increased?Because the next ice age is starting
>>15990476https://www.desmog.com/about/>Our Team>Brendan DeMelle>Brendan is Executive Director of DeSmog. He is also a freelance writer and researcher specializing in media, politics, climate change and energy. His work has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Grist, The Washington Times and other outlets.Organization run by a professional propagandist with no scientific education past high school
>>16036463Ironic considering Tony Heller's "qualifications"
>>16036029earth's climate has been consistently cooling for the past several decades
>>15990448I fail to understand how any of this matters. Is he wrong? I care little who funds such things if the conclusions are correct. If there truly is an inconsistency we must question why. Can confirm the 1990 graph exists. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdfPDF page 272, print page 224A possible point of contention is that the 1990 graph picture in the gif is northern hemisphere only. Sothern hemisphere graph is depicted in the report as well. I cant locate the same graph in a 2001 report, I think I cant find the correct pdf, the one I have has fewer pages than I would expect. It could be that the OP is correct, or it could be that the 2001 report graph uses the Sothern hemisphere version or that the 2001 report consolidates northern and Sothern hemisphere datasets. Or it could be a total fabrication, though I am inclined not to think this likely. Attached is a png extracted from the scan tif used to make the pdf. It may be the highest fidelity version of this graph on the neterwebs.
>>16037782Got it. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdfPDF page 136 print page 125Both graphs depict artic ice levels. The 2001 paper goes into more depth about the data sources. Would be nice to collect that raw data ourselves to see what if any funny business was played. If the 1990 paper and 2001 paper each used the best reasonably available data at the time it is possible the discrepancy could be from the differing datasets with no ill intent. Regardless, they don't just throw away this kind of data, it's hard to collect and is well preserved. Not like it's Moon landing telemetry recordings or something useless to posterity like that.
>>15990660>>15990672>>15990686>>15990694>>15990697>>15990984>>15990986>>15991134>>16029187>Sea-ice extent anomaly (10^2 × km^6)Is in the original full IPPC report found here https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdfPDF page 136If this is in error the error is the IPPC's not whoever is posting these images.
>>15990438>global south intellectual never heard of the nothern passage
>>16039358its now 11 year later, how come the arctic isn't ice free yet?
>>15990438oy vey stop noticing goy
>>16040093The elites don’t want you to know this but the ice at the artic is free, you can take them home I have 458 ice.
>>16037807So OP was telling the truth after all...
>>16041892Yes, the discrepancy is real. Weather it's simply due to different datasets that do not agree with one another or due to a nefarious plot is unknown.
>>16041949
>>16043744the ice age wouldn't but the global conflicts that would arise over competition for dwindling resources just might. That wasn't something our ice age relatives had to worry about
>>16043747what dwindling resources?
>>16044829Precioius IQ points.
>>16005335another gem from 'toss
>>16000457>>dude gas concentration measurements are a conspiracyPeople calibrating smoke detectors i know had measured the same,so what?
Hellen Keller ahh thread
>>16037807Global warming hysterics will no doubt tell you that the IPCC's old data is retarded while also claiming that the same organization is infallible when it claims global warming is real.
>>15990439Literally Russia.
>>15990449That's nice. Socialism still isn't the answer though. Free market capitalism is.
>>15990448>funded by the fossil fuel industry.Climate change alarmism is funded by the government to take away freedom.
>>16047589True
>>16047589
>>15990438>more polar sea ice nowproof of global warming
>>16036029
>>16047589you can try to blame some other groups, but its pretty clear that scientists are extremely eager to comply and participate in that process
>>16037802>>16037782Uh? Climate sisters?
>>16054258if people were truly concerned about global warming they would be happy to find out that arctic ice has increased during the past several decades. someone who gets upset about hearing that want global warming to be true, they don't want to prevent it
>>15990896>thread moved to /b/You don't hate jannies enough
>>16052188So volcanoes, which emit massive amounts of CO2, cause global cooling
>>16049795Lol no.
>>16056002how do global warming believers explain this
>>16056002This is actually because of all the sulfur that volcanoes produce, which creates clouds that reflect sunlight back into space thus cooling the planet. It was believed industrial pollution would do the same, as if sunlight is reflected by smog then it ends up cooling things. This line of thinking vanished after the 70's with various pollution and environmental standards.Global warming fags will try to tell you this was some minority opinion, but it's basic science.
>>15990439(((you)))
The 1990 IPCC report used a lot of old and less reliable data. When newer data became available that better showed the global warming signal, climate skeptics became irate because they didn't like it.Pic unrelated.
>>16059802roy spencer is just another ZOG shill from NASA
>>16060991>vanity website cringe
>>16061938NASA morons are extremely vain people, thats why they devote their lives to getting a five figure salary prestige job and condemning themselves to terminal poverty for the sake of being able to brag about being a scyentist.
>>16060991He's a climate change skeptic and a creationist.
>>16059802>Pic unrelated.Zoom out. 160°C is the span shill.
>>16063085
>>16058352measured vs. adjusted always "adjusts" to warmer temps in the present and cooler temps in the past. if the adjustments were legitimate then they'd go the other way half the time
>>16064722>I don't like the results so they're wrong.
>>16037807damn
>>16064898>>I don't like the results so they're wrong.That's not a good enough reason to adjust the data.
>>16030495yeah, then once half the world is underwater, it will really open up new shipping routes!!!
>>16065132thats the adjusted datapicrel is made from the raws
>>16065685>no change in arctic sea ice extent in over 20 yearsis this global warming?
>>16057342They can't, they'll post trash like >>16057505 and then turn right around and claim volcanoes caused global warming which lead to the permian–triassic extinction. Volcanoes cause global cooling when its convenient for them to say that and they cause global warming when thats the argument they want to make. They know nobody has a time machine to go back and actually see what conditions were like millions of years ago so they know they can always make both arguments and never be disproved.
>>16065685>picrel is made from the rawsWhat sashimi-eating faggot world think that raw is better? I'm experimental particle physics. Good luck trying to deduce anything from my raw files.
>>16067656>I'm experimental particle physics.no you aren't, you're a sperg, you can't even communicate correctly
>>16067612It really comes down to what sort of chemicals that the volcano is spewing out. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, methane is a greenhouse gas, sulfur and dust generate cloud albedo. But it's not just one thing, it's all of these things; and it happens as a natural process on an almost constant basis so it really is just a "correlation = causation" argument.Really any climate effects from a major volcano eruption would be extreme but temporary, see the year without a summer.
>>16068730>CO2 is a greenhouse gas,no it isn't, mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 was a greenhouse gas.mars has no measurable greenhouse effect regardless the fact that mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than earth does
>>16068736Mars has too thin an atmosphere. Don't die on this hill. Earth's atmosphere is dominated by other greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, such as methane and water vapor, that Mars lacks so it's not a good case study.
>>16070001The atmosphere of Mars can't produce a greenhouse effect because CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
>>16071167tsmt this
>>16068736>>16073736It's almost like CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just not a very good one. I've already told you that water vapor and methane on Earth help things along significantly, which Mars does not have because its atmosphere has been stripped away by solar winds due to a lack of magnetic field. CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the easiest thing to prove in the world. You take a jar, fill it with CO2, expose it to sunlight, and wow it starts to heat up faster than a jar filled with regular air. The issue is how much of an impact it has on Earth's atmosphere, where CO2 doesn't even represent 1% and is constantly soaked up by the biosphere that is hungry like nothing else for it.If you continue this retarded argument, I can only assume you to be trying to make other people look retarded.
>>16073759>where CO2 doesn't even represent 1%You're smarter than this
>>15990448The very notion of biotic oil, of implicit scarcity, is fabricated and presumably founded by the fossil fuel industry.
>>16076584Nonsense.
>>16076584Yes, the details are in >>15990896
>>15990492This is exactly correct and I notice everyone ignored it.OP is pretending climate change isn't happening by attacking a single data point when he's easily provably wrong using multiple points of information.https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-coverhttps://nsidc.org/data/seaice_indexhttps://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-has-arctic-ice-declined-and-how-does-compare-past-periods-earths-historyhttps://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2023/sea-ice-2023/But go ahead and believe his misleading garbage infographic posted by a fossil fuel industry shill.
>>16079920You've summarised /sci/ in 2024
>>16080645Is that just a lazy bump?
>>16081247Climate change deniers like to ignore actual rebuttals, jerk each other off, and keep these threads bumped for as long as possible so they can feel like they've won.
>>16079920Ah, I see. Still no pictures of sea level rise
>>16073786Are you? CO2 is a trace gas.https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphereSo as I said, CO2 does not even represent 1% of the atmosphere.
>>16081778There are none
sea level is falling
>>16055348
>>15990448Not an argument.
>>16086264How could that have happened if global warming is real?
>>16087163How are two single data points possible in an overall trend????
>>16087243Why is there so much more ice now than in the 1980s if global warming is real? You claim to be concerned about the dangers of global warming, so you should be happy to see that its not happening, unless you have an ulterior motive for claim to be concerned about the dangers of global warming. I sure hope you're not dishonestly claiming to be concerned about global warming as a means of forwarding some other hidden agenda
>>16082100
>>15990420They wouldn't have to adjust the raw data to get the results they want if global warming was real
>>16088810Missing a few zeros. The true number is 0.035%.
>>16089057Right, if global warming was true then the raw data would necessarily reflect that
Can global warming believers tell me why 2000-5000ppm CO2 during the precambrian explosion (amongst many other time periods during earth's recent biological history) didn't turn Earth in venus nor kill all life nor even most or some life, but now 400ppm today will kill us all in less than a hundred years?
>>16090848If 2000-5000ppm CO2 resulted in the precambrian explosion then why shouldn't we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 in the current era will also make nature prosper and proliferate similarly?
>>16091811>>16093185You know the precambrian explosion was the result of mass extinction, right? Is was a mass speciation event where the handful of surviving species had no predators and no competition in any ecological niche. Carbon dioxide didn't cause the precambrian explosion. It caused rapid climate change which caused a mass extinction. Modern global warming is happening faster than that.
>>16094087If those were actual humans, you'd make them think, but Exxon bots can't think.
>>15990420From my experience data corrections like these usually come from people realizing, that the measurements had some kind of systematic deviation. they then quantify that deviation once they find out it exists and try to correct the data for it. I say from my experience, because i saw this happening in the past several times. eventually i did the unthinkable: i just contacted the people producing the data and asked what this was about. The guy simply explained they found out the data did not fit with surrounding weather stations, they searched for the cause and found the thermometer was slowly losing its liquid over the decades. then they quantified it, corrected it and suddenly, oh wonder, it fit with the surrounding weather stations.The truth is often rather mundane. Just sad to see people are to stupid/lazy to just research this shit.
>>16094706This is exactly what they did. They found that the data did not fit their models, so they changed the data. It really makes sense when you think about it.
>>16095205that proves that CO2 is good
>>16097366And there was even less ice in 1984.How would that be possible if global warming was real?
>>15990420they pretty much reversed the data to make it look like there wasn't less ice in 1970 than there is now
>>16083771Post glaciation isostatic rebound.
>>15991746
The early data (early 70s) used an electrically scanning microwave radiometer (ESMR), while after that it uses scanning multichannel microwave radiometer (SMMR) and special sensor microwave/imager (SSM/I) instruments, which give better data.
>>16102478Wasn't adjusted, older data was just crap and thus discarded.
>>16103001Cool. I never knew we use time machines to get better data.
>>16103006ESMR instrument wasn't properly polarized and was picking up all sorts of noise for directions it wasn't pointed at, that made it unusable for sea ice monitoring. The other instruments were better. Scientists tried to fix older satellite data, but it was crappy and couldn't extract the real signal even when calibrated with the better instruments. If you think that requires time machines, you are retarded.
>>16103099>lets just change the data so it fits our theory
>>16104071It wasn't changed, it was discarded. Also, deniers are the ones whining how unreliable temperature records and raw data are, why are they angry that old unreliable data is removed? Then again, they were happy to use bad satellite temperature data for decades when it didn't correct properly for orbital decay and showed cooling.
>>16104529>lets just change the data so it fits our theory
>>16105877Thats how soiyence works
“Climate change is fake” <— YOU ARE HERE“Ok, climate change is real but it’s actually good”“Ok, climate change isn’t good but it’s not that bad”“Ok, climate change is bad but we can’t afford the “solutions”“Fuck”
>>16106854“Climate change is real” <— YOU ARE HERE“Ok, climate change is real but it causes both extremes of hot and cold”“Ok, climate change is real, but our last prediction about when it was too late has been pushed forward by another ten to twenty years”“Ok, climate change might not be real, but we need clean energy anyway also please redesign all your cities”“Okay, it was never real, but it was a necessary lie a la Plato."
>>16106902nothing that you do is improving anything for anyone
>>15990420Dude, we have photographic evidence that the ice caps are melting. Not only that but we have changing migration patterns of plants and animals showing the arctic is getting warmer.You act like one series of data is all we have proving climate change which is wholeheartedly stupid and the mark of a moron.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEhfYZbiKM
>>16107444Name one problem with fossil fuels other than climate change.>PEAK OILThe 70's called. They want their hysteria back.
>>16090848I'm not a cold blooded reptile, homo genus evolved in relatively moderate climate of pleistocene. I would prefer climate to stay as it is.
>>15990420I'm very disappointed. I want to poles to melt.
>>16107608It would be nice to see whats under all that ice in antarctica.
>>15991746Michael Mann sued some lying global warming denying conservative faggots for defamation over the hockey stick graph and won over a million dollars in damages.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/us-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1m-in-defamation-lawsuit
>>16109055>“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,”The comparison to a child molester was what got them in trouble."Michael Mann is like Charles Dawson, the hockey stick graph is the piltdown man of the modern age" is not defamation."Michael Mann is like a child molester, the hockey stick graph is like sticking his hand down the unspoiled panties of science" is defamation.
>>16109065Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.”
>>16109055blah blah blah muh direction brain politics >>>/pol/
>>15990449The eastern seaboard will be mostly underwater by 2025
>>16109939The soiyentists already predicted that supposed to have happened ages ago, but it never did
>>16108873you would never be allow to see, ZOG would hoard anything interesting or valuable to itself
>>16109939
>>16105877>>16106789
>>16101067If that were really the case than all of displacement caused by the rising sea floors would cause displacement of the oceans resulting in noticeable sea level rise, so where are the pictures of the rising seas that we've been promised by the global warming hoaxers for the past several decades?
>>16101320>which give better data.Better by what metric?>>16104529>It wasn't changed, it was discarded.retard
>>16114852
>>15991753Why do use modeled data as substitute for empirical readings to get your "global" temperature?All those medieval times south american thermometers amirite?
>>15991794Exxon-Mobil is not rich guys. it's a corporate platform owned by the banks forming a backbone of energy infrastructure in the bigger picture of the American industrial cartel.It was "owned" in 1975 by Chase Manhattan, whose Chairman David Rockefeller FOUNDED the WEF and Club of Rome and sponsored Maurice Strong and later Hansen and all this climate change shit.Professional skeptics tend to be funded by the Kochs who are like the minor league in the oil industry.Exxon-Mobil's scientists resurrected the dead and buried greenhouse theory of Arrhenius in the 1960s looking for an excuse to regulate people like the Kochs.
>>15991753Any discussion about the measurable effects of a changing climate must necessarily examine some region or part of the whole. A global climate is so abstract as to be meaningless. The global climate is the gobi desert and Antarctica. It is death valley and Svalbard.A global average is necessarily going to smooth out a lot of regional variance and inevitably MASK a lot of the natural variance in the climate that different regions will see. It's only by examining a contiguous, coherent, identifiable area that we can make some sense of how it has changed over time.
>>16116568Take your meds.
>>16116534>leftHigh tide>rightLow tide.
>>16067612>volcanoes as a boogeyman that conveniently explains every climatological mystery. i guess thats easier than learning to understand milankovitch cycles
>>16118025Prove him wrong.
>>15990686>I'm all for ruining this board; I've done it multiple times because I think shitting up a board on 4chan is sticking it to the mean scientists
>>16120053Wrong.
>>16120538pro scientists fake data all the time, thats why the replication crisis exists to begin with. you'll never be a pro if you don't learn how to fake data
>>16122933>>16123785>>>/pol/
>>16107565
>>16129824the peak oil meme actually goes back to the first decade of the 20th century. the oil industry was only started in the 1870s, so they've been shilling the peak oil meme for about 80% of their history
>>16130751The first oil field that was ever developed for commercial exploitation in Titusville, PA, is still producing. There is no oil field anywhere in the world that has ever run dry. Peak oil is just another big lie
>>16132092You can did a well anywhere on the planet and hit infinite hydrocarbon fuel if you go down 8km or so. The professionals go for easier access wells because that makes the extraction cheaper and more profitable
>>16130751>>16132092>>16132774Meds
>>15990420NASA wouldn't need to fake that data if global warming was real
>>16132774Deep wells are tricky because its so hot down there, not good for the drilling equipment, but they're past the point where they have to invent new technology to dig deep wells, so the expense isn't all that much greater than relatively shallow wells. Deepwater Horizon is 500% deeper than most of the onshore sites in Texas and it still makes a lot of money.
