🗑️ 🧵 Climate change is real and anthropogenic but I have a question
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:01:27 UTC No. 16296250
So like the title says, not trying to argue against the existence of climate change. Just have a question about the historic measurements. Historic daily measurements go back to about 1850, in a time where you have people using analog mercury thermometers measuring the temperature and marking down what they saw with a margin of error around 1-2 tenths of a degree. Fast forward to today and we can use digital thermometers placed all around the globe to get accurate readings to several significant figures.
So my question is how do we square the old data with the new when the amount of change we're trying to avoid falls within that margin for error?
Genuinely asking. Research papers on it would be cool if you have it.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:13:15 UTC No. 16296261
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:16:27 UTC No. 16296266
>>16296261
Kek. It's worse than I thought.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:57:21 UTC No. 16296734
>>16296250
stop asking legitimate, well thought-out questions. You might undermine the green industry
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:05:40 UTC No. 16296746
>>16296250
that sounds a bit antisemite you know
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:31:00 UTC No. 16296775
Some of the readings would be a little high and some would be a little low, so if you average across a bunch of different thermometers its more accurate
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:33:31 UTC No. 16296780
>>16296775
Even if I grant that this is the case you're still introducing a margin of error that's greater than the levels of temperature change we're measuring.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:57:27 UTC No. 16296804
>>16296250
Google "temperature proxies" and "instrumental record of the climate" and all will be revealed.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:24:23 UTC No. 16296871
>>16296804
That doesn't answer my question at all. I understand the concept of a climate proxy already for finding the general temperature in prehistoric times. My question is on the accuracy of those old records when it was just some guy with a bucket on a boat using a visual mercury thermometer. How do we deal with the margin of error that must exist for those old measurements being greater than the shifts in climate we observe?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:26:16 UTC No. 16296874
>>16296775
They were all measured in windows at some british university in 1860, thats global temperature btw
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 05:39:22 UTC No. 16296967
>>16296871
>prehistoric times
Google "temperature proxies" and "instrumental record of the climate" and all will be revealed.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 05:40:22 UTC No. 16296969
>>16296874
Source?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:18:11 UTC No. 16297207
>>16296967
You're not answering the question and you're not as smart as you think. Proxies only have a resolution in decade at best. We're looking at marginal fluctuations on a daily basis and trying to compare back to a decade long average as validation for daily measurements taken with inaccurate tools.
How is that not just introducing margins of error everywhere? Could you at least post a research article that deals with this question instead of posting that I should Google something that just raises more doubt?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:14:47 UTC No. 16297330
>>16297207
>points towards entire library building
>have you read it yet? Better do or your argument is invalid
I am very smart
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:30:09 UTC No. 16297343
>>16296967
Google primarily returns reddit posts. Is that really where you want people to get information from? Is that scientific?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:31:50 UTC No. 16297345
>>16296871
1850 wasn't "some guy with a bucket" which is why it's considered the start of reliable instrumental records.
>How do we deal with the margin of error that must exist for those old measurements being greater than the shifts in climate we observe?
With proxies and instrumental records.
What is the actual problem you are having? Your question was answered multiple times.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:33:29 UTC No. 16297347
>>16297345
You're simply saying all answers can be found by consulting the Bible. Simply read the Bible. Oh, sorry, not the Bible but [insert key phrase here].
DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING UNSCIENTIFIC PSEUD
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:38:27 UTC No. 16297349
>>16297347
>what's 1+1 and don't say 2
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:39:58 UTC No. 16297350
>>16297349
That's not what I'm doing. I'm not telling you to give a different answer.
I'M TELLING YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER.
How hard is that to understand?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:42:23 UTC No. 16297352
>>16297350
Well how many papers did you read on the subject and what is your specific problem with them, I can justify any issues you may have after you provide a quote.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:42:32 UTC No. 16297353
>>16297345
>With proxies and instrumental records.
Describe the main proxy and discuss its theoretical premise and potential sources of error, which might be small but never zero
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:42:45 UTC No. 16297354
>>16297349
No
You have a security error (information leak/other) hard for me to describe here. Because of measures you have taken, this secret is safe. I will wait until further contact. This may have been a mistake. It certainly would have been better if you made contact first prior to learning this. If you were as wise as me, you wouldn't have even asked for this. That's the best I've got for you. Again, in case I fluff something up, I'm waiting for your connect.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:43:46 UTC No. 16297356
>>16297353
The paper usually states which source it's using, so check it and it should tell you.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:46:27 UTC No. 16297359
>>16297354
Pay me nothing. Spend what you would pay me, on making this quick. If that's impossible, I'll take the pay.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:50:39 UTC No. 16297361
>>16297356
Which paper?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:51:49 UTC No. 16297362
>>16297361
Which ever you are talking about that has a main proxy
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:52:59 UTC No. 16297364
>>16297362
You're the one who brought up proxies and instrumental record. Now you say it's in "the paper".
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:54:27 UTC No. 16297367
>>16297364
Yes those explain the issues you are having with the paper that you are having problems with. So you start from the paper and then look at it's sources. I cannot mind read you and figure out which paper you are talking about.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:56:45 UTC No. 16297369
>>16297367
Holy shit lmfao. Not even going to bother with anything beyond laughing at you and mocking you. Maybe another anon has more patience. You're hilarious.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:58:16 UTC No. 16297371
>>16297369
If you don't have a paper that you have a problem with then I don't see why you pretend you are having a problem. OP clearly has a paper in mind that is using historic data and the answer to his problem is to look at said paper where it's most likely explained. It would be extremely silly to seethe at a problem that you aren't having so I merely assumed you were sane.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:58:18 UTC No. 16297372
>>16297367
How do you explain that those same proxies do not corelate to measured temperature time ranges? Why can't we use proxies to accurately measure the climate in 1980?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:59:30 UTC No. 16297376
>>16297372
Which paper are you referring to?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:02:01 UTC No. 16297377
>>16297371
I'm op and I don't have a paper in mind. I'm asking for papers to help me square the problem of historic data from time periods where measurements would have necessarily been inaccurate against today's modern methods that in theory should be incredibly accurate sans shit like this >>16296261
You keep saying "proxies" but that doesn't square against our daily measurements when the best proxies have a resolution of a decade and they can't even be proven against modern times. A theory based on nothing.
So I'm asking for research papers on the question of accuracy in climate model confirmation.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:03:24 UTC No. 16297381
>>16297377
Well any paper that uses said sources would be fine then, start from one of those. Or is this yet another "imaginary" problem that you refuse to interact with.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:03:42 UTC No. 16297382
>>16297367
>s you are having with the paper
What paper? You are the one mentioning some paper and proxies. Which ones? Which paper?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:04:57 UTC No. 16297384
>>16297381
I told you I don't have a paper so if you pick one at random that's totally fine by me. Just saying "Google proxies" has only raised more questions.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:06:15 UTC No. 16297385
>>16297382
Which ever you think has "the problem of historic data from time periods where measurements would have necessarily been inaccurate against today's modern methods"
or
"how do we square the old data with the new when the amount of change we're trying to avoid falls within that margin for error?"
Which I presume is a thing that exist because you keep saying it's a problem thus you likely have a paper in mind that demonstrates this phenomena and it's not merely a figment of your imagination.
>>16297384
If you can't even prove this problem exist why insist that it's a problem. Anything that you bring up without evidence can be dismissed without any.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:07:19 UTC No. 16297388
>>16297207
I'm not answering because your question belies your ignorance. Google is free. Learn how to use it.
>>16297343
You are the one choosing to click on those posts. Pick a real source of information.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:08:20 UTC No. 16297391
>>16297353
>main proxy
Retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:08:28 UTC No. 16297393
>>16297385
>Which ever you think has "the problem of historic data from time periods where measurements would have necessarily been inaccurate against today's modern methods"
I dont have any paper in mind. Its you mentioning papers now as if you have read many and knows what you are talking about. So pick any paper that is important enough to merit discussion, and explain at least a major proxy to measure temperatures. You pick one.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:09:20 UTC No. 16297395
>>16297393
>I dont have any paper in mind.
Well in that case I will simply state that no such paper exist and it has never been done so the problem does in fact not exist. Is that sufficient?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:09:33 UTC No. 16297397
>>16297391
If you dont want to order different proxies by importance, then just mention any proxy you want. Literally any proxy. Pick one.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:10:48 UTC No. 16297398
>>16297395
>Is that sufficient?
No, because its an obvious lie. You are talking about papers that mention proxies, now you say such papers dont exist. Looks like you have been hoisted by your own petard. Trapped in a logical cage of your own making.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:11:27 UTC No. 16297400
>>16297388
Start on why we can't use climate proxies for the modern era. Why do they not work now but they worked before?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:12:06 UTC No. 16297402
>>16297398
Why is it obvious lie? You and I have both searched and found no such paper thus it's quite demonstrable at least according to the level of evidence you are clearly willing to accept that no such paper exist. It's up to who ever thinks said paper exists to find evidence of a single one.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:12:22 UTC No. 16297403
>>16297385
It is a figment of his imagination. He's been told there's problems so he believes there's problems. He doesn't have the scientific chops to read papers and analyze what he's been told.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:13:44 UTC No. 16297405
>>16297400
Who says they don't work now? Who says they worked in the past?
>>16297398
You said that the problem exists thus you have a paper that demonstrates the problem occurring, trapped in a logical cage of your own making.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:13:45 UTC No. 16297406
>>16297402
Then why did you bring it up on the first place? That's the lie.
>Explain this concept to me please
>The answer is in the use of proxies
>Could you show me a paper that uses proxies
>No such paper exists
Why are you a lying retard?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:14:51 UTC No. 16297407
>>16297403
Post the paper so I can read it and learn?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:15:50 UTC No. 16297408
>>16297406
OP stated that he knows of a problem and the answer is to read the paper he has a problem with. It's merely a hypothetical, if OP has no paper to demonstrate his problem then the answer is not necessary or a lie because if he had a paper the answer would be in said paper and if he doesn't there's no problem. Why are you lying and retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:16:56 UTC No. 16297409
I see the climate shills have modified their strategy. They used to post links to papers or studies without arguments, and their own sources got torn to shreds by physicists and others. Now they seem to just gaslight and project without sources, telling you to consult Google and all will be revealed, like they're religious prophets. An interesting shift in strategy. Unfortunately for them it still only amplifies doubt. Attention shills, the only way to convince people to believe in you again is to genuinely and honestly educate. But you can't because firstly you barely understand what you preach and what little you do understand you have your own doubts about.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:17:57 UTC No. 16297413
>>16297408
Or maybe they used Google like you said, found information and is asking a question. Ever consider that, fuckhead?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:18:44 UTC No. 16297415
>>16297413
Which information is that exactly? Did you try to read said information?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:20:39 UTC No. 16297416
>>16297408
>The problem doesn't exist
>It's proven to not be a problem in papers
>No I won't show the papers
>If you don't have the paper on hand then I'm not going to answer this question
Look I started this thread genuinely looking for answers to something that seems like an obvious problem in how we collect data and try to map on sparse trends from the past with minute by minute modern day records. I don't need to read a research paper to know that a decade long time window problem won't catch that time it spiked to 112 for 3 seconds in some remote location.
So genuinely asking, are there research papers specifically on the accuracy of climate proxies?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:20:40 UTC No. 16297417
>>16297402
>Why is it obvious lie? Y
Because you said "look into the papers" now you say "papers dont exist". Once of those is a lie. BTW now you are exposed as a retard that doesnt understand basic logic
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:22:18 UTC No. 16297421
>>16297405
>You said that the problem exists thus you have a paper that demonstrates
No one said there was a paper about this. There was mention of a problem, never of a paper. You are the one who randomly mentioned papers.
Do you understand that theres a reality outside of papers and studies?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:23:38 UTC No. 16297423
If climate change is real why don't rich ashekenazi americans sell their waterfront properties? I thought the free market encoded information about the actual state of the world through price discovery?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:24:48 UTC No. 16297425
>>16297416
Why do you lie? If you can't show a problem exists then it doesn't exist.
>I dont have any paper in mind.
Could you perhaps post a single case of this being a problem?
>So genuinely asking, are there research papers specifically on the accuracy of climate proxies?
Is there a single paper that uses proxies?
>>16297417
>Because you said "look into the papers" now you say "papers dont exist".
It's a conditional statement, OP has a problem with a paper, so he can look into said paper to find the solution. If he now concedes that no such problem exists then there's no need to look into his paper because it doesn't exist. The lie is in this case found in the OP where he claims there's a problem but can't prove the problem has occurred. You are now exposed as a retard that doesn't understand basic logic.
>>16297421
You do have to demonstrate a problem exists before you demand a solution. I don't consider what ever OP says as a problem if it doesn't occur even in a single paper.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:29:36 UTC No. 16297431
>>16297400
We can. Google it, retard. All the information you want is freely available.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:30:25 UTC No. 16297432
>>16297425
>, OP has a problem with a paper,
Not true, this is a hallucination of yours. The OP never mentioned a paper
>>16297425
>I don't consider what ever OP says as a problem if it doesn't occur even in a single paper.
Then why are you referencing papers?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:33:04 UTC No. 16297433
>>16297432
OP then demonstrably doesn't have a problem. It's addressed by simply no one using the technique OP insists is problematic so the problem clearly doesn't exist.
>Then why are you referencing papers?
Because the premise of my post is that when you insist a problem exist that it actually does. I'm engaging with you as a legitimate poster. It turns out you never had any evidence and you can simply be dismissed as a liar from the start. I'm sorry I took you seriously I suppose?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:33:07 UTC No. 16297434
>>16297425
The problem lies in logic. I'll break it down for you
>We have climate records measured by humans going back to 1850
>Those records until about 1960 were done with analog thermometers and introduce a margin of error by nature of the device and how it was built
>Prior to 1850 we use climate proxies going back thousands of years such as ice core drilling, sediment deposits, or tree rings but these have resolution windows of about a decade or longer
>We're attempting to map on 2 very different data sets, each with their own margin of error, onto modern global temperature measurements to draw trend lines and make conclusions about climate change
>Proxies do not retain accuracy in the modern age and their values diverge from the records we have of the modern time
So how can we confidently say that pic related is the trend when we haven't had accurate data until maybe the 60s.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:34:50 UTC No. 16297435
>>16297433
>OP then demonstrably doesn't have a problem
Then why are you referencing a paper that doesnt exist? You talk about this paper and make specific mentions about things in the paper, such as proxies. Another of your hallucinations? Take your meds
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:35:19 UTC No. 16297436
>>16297434
>So how can we confidently say that pic related is the trend when we haven't had accurate data until maybe the 60s.
It's explained in the paper pic related is sourced from. I don't know where it's coming from so you may need to first hit up your own reference material for this one, sorry bucko but no mind readers here.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:36:20 UTC No. 16297438
>>16297435
>Then why are you referencing a paper that doesnt exist?
Because at that point I thought OP was serious and had a paper, turns out he was merely lying. You should consider taking your meds immediately if you fail at such basic logic.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:38:56 UTC No. 16297443
>>16297434
The data now isn't accurate. They're removing temperature stations and filling in their data with "estimates". Many stations are also located in stupid places where urban heating interferes with an accurate reading. The powers that be don't actually want scientists to investigate the AGW hypothesis.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:39:15 UTC No. 16297444
>>16297433
How can you claim nobody uses ice core drilling or measuring sea water when that's literally what those historic values come from? Prior to 1850 we use proxies and after it was sea crews doing measurements of sea water in buckets or scientists on land doing the same. All with shitty analog thermometers.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:39:33 UTC No. 16297445
>>16297438
>Because at that point I thought OP
Oh so you just assumed. You just like making shit up. And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:43:36 UTC No. 16297450
>>16297444
I searched and found none, then when I asked OP and the thread about it none were provided and the question was aggressively shut down. Considering that OP is self proclaimed expert on this topic I think it's fair to access that OP known for his knowledge of these problems would be able to point out a single case of the problem occurring thus but refusing to do so combined with my own research it's safe to conclude that no problem has occurred. I'm more than happy for you to prove me wrong by simply pointing out a paper that the problem exists in however.
Also to turn this on you could you provide a single paper that actually does any of these?
>when that's literally what those historic values come from?
Which historic values? Which papers use these?
>Prior to 1850 we use proxies and after it was sea crews doing measurements of sea water in buckets or scientists on land doing the same.
Who is this we? Could you provide a single example?
>>16297445
Yes OP was indeed making shit up which makes my previous answer unnecessary though still correct. The new answer based on the new info of OP just making shit up is that the problem doesn't exist as it has not been demonstrated.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:44:57 UTC No. 16297452
>>16297450
Now you're just making shit up which is weird because I'm op and you can look at the original post and see that I'm literally asking for papers to remove doubt. You did the opposite. You got defensive and didn't answer anything.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:47:18 UTC No. 16297454
>>16297450
>The new answer
Lmao you are such a spineless faggot. You cant change your answer, its in the permanent record
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:47:40 UTC No. 16297455
>>16297452
>asking for papers to remove doubt
And I'm asking you to point out a paper where the problem exists because I don't believe it's necessary to "remove doubt" on a technique that you seem to have invented yourself and no one seems to use. I think those mind reading powers would come real handy in that one. I will simply not take you on good faith like before and accept a lie again at this point so be specific.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:48:08 UTC No. 16297456
>>16297397
Retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:48:41 UTC No. 16297458
>>16297454
Of course you can always change your answer based on new information. What kind of retard are you? I took OP seriously and answered, then based on the new information I changed the answer to a more correct one for the scenario.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:51:34 UTC No. 16297464
>>16297407
Google is free and your questions are trivial. I assume you have a keyboard so there shouldn't be anything holding you back.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:52:14 UTC No. 16297466
>>16297455
>I thought about this aspect of climate data and it logically doesn't make sense to me. Could anyone share papers that remove that doubt?
>>Just Google it bro
>Google results give more doubt after finding out about proxy resolution and inability to replicate on modern trends
>>Post papers or there's no issue
I'm the one asking for a paper. Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:53:23 UTC No. 16297467
>>16297409
If you want people to post papers then why don't you read them? I can't even count how many arguments I've had on this board where /pol/tards are refusing to read papers and linking papers that don't support their argument. If you want to be treated like an adult then act like one.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:54:22 UTC No. 16297469
>>16296250
they average the errors from all measurements and use the law of large numbers to get an average which is more accurate than the single measurements you are talking about
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:54:32 UTC No. 16297471
>>16297464
What I've found in Google is that they use proxies and have to shift the data around because it doesn't fit the trends. I found that the proxies have a decade wide resolution and that doesn't nicely map onto daily records we have now. I've found that proxies don't match against daily measures from periods where we have both.
>Just Google it bro
Left me with more questions than I had when I started.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:54:39 UTC No. 16297473
>>16297466
Yes and I'm saying that no such paper can be provided because the thing you are describing isn't real. No one in this thread not you or me has been able to find a single instance of this issue occurring. You may as well ask me to provide evidence of the sus biology of santa claus and how such a fat man can fit trough chimneys.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:55:23 UTC No. 16297475
>>16296734
it's a good thing he's paid by the oil industry
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:55:58 UTC No. 16297477
>>16297469
How much margin of error does an average like that introduce and is it larger than the distribution of temperatures we're observing over the last century?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:56:38 UTC No. 16297478
>>16297443
Completely made up nonsense
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:58:45 UTC No. 16297481
>>16297471
Where did you find that information? I really don't think you should have to be taught about informational literacy at your age, but maybe you have some kind of developmental problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:59:09 UTC No. 16297483
>>16297477
it reduces the error so if you have 100 measurements and you average them then you'll get closer to the actual average. this is also how the global average temperature is sampled and calculated today. data is gathered across the world and then averaged. why is this confusing for you?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:59:49 UTC No. 16297487
>>16297477
>How much margin of error does an average like that introduce and is it larger than the distribution of temperatures
Retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:05:46 UTC No. 16297493
>>16297473
What specifically isn't real?
The proxy resolution?
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports
>High resolution proxies are annual or seasonal
The fact that the proxies are inaccurate and need to be adjusted to square them against measured data and as such have larger margins of error? Pic related
https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:07:13 UTC No. 16297495
>>16297483
>>16297487
I understand it reduces the margin of error. But we're talking about shifts in global temperature in the tenths of a degree Celsius compared against proxies with large margins of error. What is the margin?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:08:18 UTC No. 16297497
>>16297481
You don't know how old I am. See
>>16297493
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:13:11 UTC No. 16297504
>>16297493
>What specifically isn't real?
What ever you specifically claim but refuse to provide a source for, so far everything you have written down it seems. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting your source though, which I repeat I have encouraged many times now.
Do you have a problem with annual or seasonal proxies? According to this source
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports
They be used to provide detailed information on annual or near-annual climate variations back in time, which is what climate is. I fail to see where the problem is again.
>>16297495
>What is the margin?
Which paper are you referring to? The margins are included in the papers and vary on paper to paper basis.
>>16297497
If you are old enough to post then you should be old enough to know how to read a research paper. You can of course pull the "gotcha" on how you are actually 12 but I don't think that's a very smart move.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:16:38 UTC No. 16297511
>>16297504
I have a problem with annual or seasonal data that according to the paper I just posted, has large margins of reported and potential uncertainty, being cross compared with measured daily climate and being used to create trend lines.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:17:26 UTC No. 16297512
>>16297511
I don't think that's a problem nor do I believe that has ever been done. So is there anything else?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:20:52 UTC No. 16297517
>>16297497
I assumed you're at least over 18, underageb&
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:21:53 UTC No. 16297518
>>16297345
The records of sea level don't align with the extremist climate predictions. We also have photo evidence the sea level has not written. These scientists are liars making false predictions. Nothing but frauds.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:22:12 UTC No. 16297520
>>16297518
Which records are those? Which predictions?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:22:14 UTC No. 16297521
>>16297512
It's literally in the chart I just shared.
>>16297493
>High reported and potential uncertainty in proxies several times larger than both on measured data
>>16297434
>A trend line drawn through periods where only proxies were available into the modern age
Don't believe my lying eyes? Can we just focus on the accuracy of proxies? One thing at a time.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:24:15 UTC No. 16297523
>>16297493
>>16297497
>>16297517
To address your question, you clearly don't understand how the data id being handled. Try reading the methodology and discuss sections.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:25:09 UTC No. 16297525
>>16297521
In the first chart you quote none of these things are occurring:
>High reported and potential uncertainty in proxies several times larger than both on measured data
>A trend line drawn through periods where only proxies were available into the modern age
The second one you quote is an unsourced image made with MSpaint, but to humor you, it also doesn't show uncertainties several times larger than the data or a trend line.
So 2/2 on that one.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:25:21 UTC No. 16297526
>>16297520
>Which records are those?
Not him but are you asking about records of sea levels?
I dont have any such records. Informally i have not seen any sea levels rise, and if such rise happened it must be nearly insignificant, like a few millimeters or centimeter at most. Something you just cant notice except with careful measurements.
If science predicted this, kudos for science but i dont see why anyone should care about something so insignificant you need high-tech to know its happening
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:25:25 UTC No. 16297528
>>16297495
Retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:26:32 UTC No. 16297529
>>16297526
I'm asking him which records he's referring to. I don't have them and you don't have them either which is why I asked him. Do you by a chance have a reading comprehension problem?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:27:44 UTC No. 16297532
>>16296250
>how do we square the old data with the new when the amount of change we're trying to avoid falls within that margin for error?
So if you take a single measurement, call it [math] X [/math] with a standard deviation (that is an error of [math] \Delta [/math], then you have the situation you described, imagine though that we collect a set of [math] N [/math] measurements from thermometers with (we'll assume approximately) the same error then we average these results, and then try and work out the SD of the entire data set:
[eqn]
Y = \frac{(X_1 + X_2 + \cdots + X_N)}{ N}
\\
\implies \langle Y \rangle = \frac{1}{N} \langle (X_1 + X_2 + \cdots + X_N) \rangle = \frac{1}{N} (\langle X_1 \rangle + \cdots + \langle X_N \rangle) = \langle X \rangle
\\
\text{Likewise}
\\
\langle Y^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{N^2} \langle X^2 \rangle +\frac{N-1}{N} \langle X \rangle ^2
\\
\text{So, the SD of the entire set of data is}
\\
\sigma_Y^2 = \langle Y^2 \rangle - \langle Y \rangle ^2= \frac{\sigma_X^2}{N}
\\
\therefore \sigma_Y = \frac{\sigma_x}{\sqrt{N}}
[/eqn]
So we see that if we have a collection of measurements, we can average them together and, as a result, reduce the error. It's not great since we'll need 100 measurements if we want to reduce the error by a tenth. That said, if we have a collection of measurements an error of around 1.5, and we want to reduce that to say 0.5, then we need to find:
[eqn]
N = \frac{\sigma_X^2}{\sigma_Y^2}
\\
N = \frac{1.5^2}{0.5^2} = 9
[/eqn]
So, only need around 9 measurements to get the error associated with our collection of measurements down to 0.5C. You won't find any papers on this, because this is normally part of an undergraduate curriculum (for physics at least). experiments have been done like this since... well I'm not sure, since at least Gauss, but I assume earlier than that.
Does that answer your question?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:27:46 UTC No. 16297533
>>16297525
I'm sorry what? They literally mark out the high levels of reported and potential uncertainty at the top and methods used to adjust for that at the bottom.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:29:50 UTC No. 16297536
>>16297533
That's what they do, which isn't what you wrote. Also "high" is just an adjective you use, no where do they state it as high or better yet the word you are trying to imply which would be unusable. I can just as well say that they mark the data as low uncertainty and credible.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:34:24 UTC No. 16297539
>>16297532
Half a degree Celsius is 5x the amount of variance we're attempting to prevent. Mind sharing a chart on your function? I imagine you can't just add infinite sources and have your margin reach zero. Like it's probably logarithmic. And if all of the measures are inaccurate to the same degree doesn't that just get you to an average of some still inaccurate value?
Say for instance all thermometers sold in 1850 were off by 3°C +-0.5°C. So we gather 10k measurements and take the average. Even assuming that they're nicely distributed to give you a margin of error at zero, that still doesn't account for the underlying inaccuracy of the method itself. You would need to know to adjust for the 3°C as well.
*not saying that's the case, just an example
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:36:46 UTC No. 16297541
>>16297539
>Half a degree Celsius is 5x the amount of variance we're attempting to prevent
You are off by an order of magnitude just off this image alone, which you seem to be using as your own source.
>>16297434
>source of basic mathematics
lmao
The rest is naturally just babble.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:38:17 UTC No. 16297543
>>16297536
Take a break from lying for like 2 seconds
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:40:09 UTC No. 16297546
>>16297541
Even on the first chart if you were to bump up the historic data by half a degree you understand that kind of fucks up the entire narrative of run away warming right?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:42:31 UTC No. 16297549
>>16297543
No where in that do they use the word "high". Just that you understand the wide range of reported uncertainty doesn't mean that the uncertainty is wide but that there's a wide range of reports with different uncertainties, some which are lower than the maximum.
It's really becoming apparent that you lack really basic reading comprehension at this point.
>>16297546
Which narrative is that? Please cite your source.
And really now if you just move the measurements to the upper end of the uncertainty (which is handily marked in your unsourced picture) it would still clearly depict warming climate. Like you have to be pretending at this point to be this stupid.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:44:12 UTC No. 16297551
>you don't know my age
>fails at english and math
you know... I'm starting to believe he is a child
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:44:27 UTC No. 16297553
>>16297549
>Wide range
>Uncertainty represented as several times larger than measured values
This level of bullshit shouldn't be legal
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:46:59 UTC No. 16297559
>>16297553
Again that's just not what's happening. If you measure a temperature to be 28 degrees celcius then 0.5 isn't "several times larger than measured values". That's with starting the measurement from 0 instead of using the more logical full range of the contemporary thermometer which would be like 250 degrees or something
Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:58:19 UTC No. 16297569
>>16297539
>Half a degree Celsius is 5x the amount of variance we're attempting to prevent
We're attempting to avoid 2.5C, aren't we?
>I imagine you can't just add infinite sources and have your margin reach zero
You can, that's the point.
>Like it's probably logarithmic.
It goes like [math] \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}[/math] so taking 100 measurements reduces the error by 90%.
>were off by 3°C +-0.5°C.
So if you're starting by assuming that every that every thermometer was so badly calibrated that they incorrectly reported their readings by 3°C, then you'd be correct. We'd need to know by how much the particular thermometer was off when a measurement was taken and then correct for that (assuming the error was constant and systematic). However, that's unlikely. Alternatively we could find other ways of measuring the temperature at the time and then using those measurements or augmenting our data set with those measurements and then doing the same thing as I mentioned about. I don't know how that happens exactly, but normally you'd use something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propa
To be able to combine your measurements.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:30:20 UTC No. 16297590
Hey OP: Fuck Google, here's a decent starting point for your journey:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-
May reproducibility and sig figs be your guide stars.
And good luck finding the raw source data...
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:39:47 UTC No. 16297599
>>16296775
If we have hundreds of different reports and studies that contradict each other how are we supposed to actually know wtf is going on?
I thought we were dealing with an issue of too much data atm as opposed to not enough.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:41:57 UTC No. 16297603
>>16297599
>studies that contradict each other
like what?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:13:40 UTC No. 16297619
>>16297590
wattsupwiththat.com is a notorious anti science climate denial website. post some real sources conspiracytard
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:29:19 UTC No. 16297644
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:35:55 UTC No. 16297652
reminder that i already pwned these climate cultists a long time ago
>>/sci/thread/15386219#p15387388
>>/sci/thread/15386219#p15410225
>>/sci/thread/15386219#p15426936
>>/sci/thread/15386219#p15430007
and for you, specifically, you can see in these posts at least one of you retards posted papers and i tore every single one of them to shreds and tore you a new asshole for not understanding very basic physics that i teach to freshmen.
>>16297467
you fuckers got made such fools of that you tried letting the thread died and abandoned it. for the audience, i encourage you to read the linked posted (mine) and the comment chains within to see what types of tactics these losers used in the past. the very first linked post is related to pic rel, which was originally cited by climate shills as proof excess heat exists in the globe, yet the calculation was shown by me to be wholly consistent with the measured temperature on earth.
now, if any of you shills have a paper you want to cite to try to "educate" me to pwn me, i encourage you to do so. i'll read it, thoroughly, and school your ignorant asses again.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:36:09 UTC No. 16297654
>>16297644
And which part of that is wrong? Cite your source.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:41:24 UTC No. 16297661
>>16297652
>404
Summarize your arguments.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:42:13 UTC No. 16297662
>>16297652
>>16297661
better links since i apparently can't delete posts on /sci/
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
>>16297654
the projections are not confirmed to be true, and when contrasted with the measurements (which are true) anyone with eyes can see how the projections are exaggerations at best, and lies at worst. if you have to ask what the source for the RCP models are, then you're either ignorant beyond belief (in which case i doubt me citing it would help at all), or you're arguing in bad faith (in which case, you're just trying to waste my time). nonetheless, i'll be the better man and cite where it's from just to see what you do.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/p
figure 8, data tabulated in table 4 for you to reconstruct the graph on your own.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:44:53 UTC No. 16297664
>>16297662
>projections are not confirmed to be true
lmao
But yes, according to the source
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/p
The measurements follow the predictions so you lose.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:48:14 UTC No. 16297667
>>16297664
>measurements follow the predictions
>the current year is 2100
no, the measurements do not follow the predictions. to be clear, those are not "predictions". they are projections. it is not the future, and thus such projections are impossible to be followed by measurements. quit your bs
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:48:25 UTC No. 16297668
>>16297662
Your posts are so retarded that you have to be trolling.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:49:00 UTC No. 16297669
>>16297667
>projections are wrong because future hasn't happened yet
????
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:50:32 UTC No. 16297672
>>16297590
I hope you're trolling
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:52:26 UTC No. 16297674
>>16297652
I remember that thread. You got BTFO and pretended you were right anyways.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:53:00 UTC No. 16297677
>>16297669
We are talking about records of sea rise for current year and before. Things that happened and can be checked with the prrdiction
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:53:33 UTC No. 16297680
>>16297677
Yes and they completely destroyed you
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:53:40 UTC No. 16297681
>>16297669
>He doesn't understand the difference between projections and predictions
Fuck off. We're full.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:56:03 UTC No. 16297683
>>16297668
>>16297674
not an argument. this is the exact behavior the original climate cultists tried, and they eventually shirked away as you can see here
>not an argument. honestly not surprised, since you don't often encounter people capable of calling your bs. you've tried everything, including talking points, citations, insults, and flooding. each and every one of those approaches didn't just get countered and rebuked, rather they got thrown back in your face. you make a calculation, i propagate errors. you provide a citation, i explain the citation to you. you insult, i counter with attacking the argument. you flood the thread, i counter with sparse, informative posts. what's next in your arsenal bud?
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
to which, of course, the smug climate cultist slipped away into the shadows.
>>16297669
you claimed that measurements followed the projections. pray tell, how do those alleged measurements exist? do you need me to remind you of the post? as my image clearly demonstrated, there's a difference between showing people data and showing people projections. showing the two side by side reveal how the projections are fear mongering.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:56:53 UTC No. 16297684
>>16297680
How? Post the sea rise expected for the year 2024 and the observed one. Just post it side by side. Ideally a table would be better than some drawing
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:01:59 UTC No. 16297692
>>16297683
>there's a difference between showing people data and showing people projections.
You have to be 18 to post here, the years in that graph and the projections are clearly marked out on that graph. They are color coded for fucks sake. The fact that you think reading the graph is somehow hidden information just betrays your ignorance.
>>16297684
You can check out the current situation for instance here:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazar
or here (same site different portal since you likely struggle with navigation)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
There are many other sources as well for your enjoyment by using key words like sea level or sea level rise.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:02:19 UTC No. 16297694
>>16297684
the point of the plot is to project what the sea level rise will be at the year 2100. if you read the sources, you'll see they don't provide a table of the sea level at every single year. i suspect because if they did, it'd be easy to prove the model and projections wrong by now.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:02:52 UTC No. 16297695
>>16297684
Climate cultist doomers have been at it for many decades.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:04:15 UTC No. 16297699
>>16297692
i see you're finally posting links. please post a specific link to a specific plot you'd like to direct my attention to, and we can discuss it. i provided links and sources upon request, even nice enough to point out specific figure numbers and data tables. if you cannot show the same level of respect for my time, then it appears we cannot have a constructive dialogue
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:05:39 UTC No. 16297703
>>16297695
>It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:07:19 UTC No. 16297706
>>16297699
Well I mean your post got blown out by this already
>https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
Which again already destroyed your central point, you can use the links provided to find out more at your leisure.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:10:35 UTC No. 16297710
>>16297699
And since you will seethe here's a 2022 technical report with numbers and data tables for your enjoyment.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazar
Which also blows you out. It was also the first link of the first link which also proves that you do struggle with site navigation.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:11:02 UTC No. 16297711
>>16297706
i'm the one who posted it, and i'm the one who directed your attention to specific data and a figure, and for the cherry on top pointed out how the projections are fear mongering via a nice, simple visual aid. if you have something specific about my argument you're trying to rebuke, please point that out. though i doubt you can, given you don't even know the difference between a prediction and a projection. no, they are not the same.
in fact, i linked multiple arguments i made which, when they were made a year ago, weren't refuted. all that happened was i got insulted, similar to how you're doing now. climate cultists cannot do simple physics, do not know simple definitions related to scientific inquiry, and cannot properly cite data. should make a person think.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:12:29 UTC No. 16297714
>>16297710
>2022 technical report
cool. which part of this 111 page technical report would you like to direct my attention toward? if you recall, i cited a specific figure and the associated data that was used to construct that figure. or are you trying to cite a long document to intimidate without an argument?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:12:37 UTC No. 16297715
>>16297711
Yes I understand that you posted it, that doesn't mean that it doesn't blow you out. This sort of thing happens a lot with you guys. You post something you don't understand and it destroys you instantly.
>in fact, i linked multiple arguments i made which, when they were made a year ago, weren't refuted
They were refuted nearly instantly year ago when you made them.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:14:40 UTC No. 16297719
>>16297714
I mean you are free to pick any part of it to disagree with, you didn't have a specific argument just asked for more data which I provided. Like I said the previous page you posted already blew out your arguments. Here's a though maybe read the paper if you wish to discuss it. Or if that one is too hard for you, choose an easier one, it was the first one linked so maybe there's a simpler one that's been dumbed down enough.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:19:35 UTC No. 16297723
>>16297715
>You post something you don't understand and it destroys you instantly.
textbook projection. i've provided evidence where papers were posted, and i showed issues with them. see for example here
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
the argument levied against this was here (notice the insult density of the post with more citations for intimidation)
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
and my response here
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/15386
hmm, it appears i never responded to the last two papers. perhaps i might in this thread if you start arguing in good faith.
>>16297719
pretty much same applies to you above. i have a track record of diving into cited papers and proving why the person who cited them doesn't understand them.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:21:07 UTC No. 16297724
>>16297723
>textbook projection.
????
You posted a link right here
>>16297662
Which immediately destroyed you here
>>16297664
In literally under 3 minutes
It's not projection to get destroyed.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:23:28 UTC No. 16297726
>>16297478
Superlative statement typical of a narcissist.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:24:21 UTC No. 16297728
>>16297724
you don't even know the difference between predictions and projections.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:25:55 UTC No. 16297730
>>16297728
See this is why you get destroyed so easily
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:47:08 UTC No. 16297764
>>16296967
>Trust the heckin science goy
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:03:19 UTC No. 16297790
>>16297726
The burden of evidence is on you, Mr. Intellectual.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:06:25 UTC No. 16297799
>>16297694
Retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:36:00 UTC No. 16297930
>>16297790
Here's the autist documenting this particular aspect of the ongoing fraud:
https://twitter.com/_ClimateCraze/s
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:06:43 UTC No. 16297978
>>16297930
>twitter
Did you really just condescend and diagnose me and then post a twitter post as your evidence? What world do you live in?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:26:42 UTC No. 16297996
>>16297978
>a twitter post as your evidence
Not an argument.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:10:07 UTC No. 16298346
>>16297619
It's a page of temperature data. What's wrong with the data?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:26:21 UTC No. 16298685
>>16297719
>I mean you are free to pick any part of it to disagree with,
We already asked you for the specific part. A part where its reported the measured accumulated sea rise for the year 2024, and some predicted sea rise for the same year, calculated by some prestigious institution like an university. I dont know what pages to look for these two bits of information, so point out at them.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:31:48 UTC No. 16298690
>>16298685
Let me explain further: Climate people get shit on a lot because they make gradiose predictions for the far future that obviosly cannot be verified until then. But because you have been at thiis for decades, there have also been already predictions made for the year 2024. Its not like the projections are of a stable climate until 2099 and then BOOM YEAR 2100 CLIMATE BAD.
So say post some projection published way before the year 2024, say in the year 2000, and then post the measured rise. Thats still 24 years to experimentally test the theory.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:29:58 UTC No. 16298946
>>16298690
Who? In what way is this representative of climate science?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:32:37 UTC No. 16298951
>>16298346
His program was designed and is used exclusively to generate cherry picked graphs. Read the top of your favorite. It will say something like "days over 95 F in the northeastern US between the months of January to May"
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:33:43 UTC No. 16298952
>>16297996
Correct. You failed to post an argument or any evidence from an argument. I can't imagine what kind of mental deficiency you have to have to think that twitter is an appropriate source for anything.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:56:05 UTC No. 16299046
>>16298952
>You failed to post an argument or any evidence
But that's exactly what I did. You probably didn't even follow the link. More evidence of narcissism.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 16:17:07 UTC No. 16299083
Are you going to post any past prediction/projection for the year 2024 or not? Stop wasting time
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 18:22:41 UTC No. 16299226
>>16299046
The fact that you think twitter satisfies the burden of proof demonstrates that you have poor informational literacy and everything you say can be immediately dismissed.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 18:56:08 UTC No. 16299267
>>16299226
The fact that you argue as if twitter is a person demonstrates that you in fact have poor informational literacy. If you had actualy read the information I posted, which just so happens to be hosted on twitter, then you would realize that my original claim is true. The NOAA falsifies temperature records for weather stations that are no longer operating.
Frin at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:35:06 UTC No. 16299313
>>16296250
Ice core data.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:40:05 UTC No. 16299318
>>16299226
Why are you not posting the information that was requested from you, about sea rise for 2024. I mean you dont have to, but since you are on a crusade to evangelize for your cult you kind of have to answer these questions
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:03:10 UTC No. 16299619
>>16299267
>satellites can measure the ground temp globally
>why aren't they maintaining weather stations anymore
Weather stations are legacy technology for long term temperature logging and are only needed for wind and instantanious temperature data.
You might aswell be arguing that researchers don't take photos anymore because they don't buy film.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:58:24 UTC No. 16299690
>>16299267
>>16299318
Both of you are morons and neither of you have fulfilled the burden of proof. I hope you're suitably embarrassed, but I'm sure you're too stupid to even understand your fault.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:59:33 UTC No. 16300490
>>16296250
Statistics
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 16:51:48 UTC No. 16300517
>>16299690
>f you have fulfilled the burden of proof.
We dont have to, we are asking you for proof. Your loss anyway, you wont get converts with that attitude
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:08:14 UTC No. 16300620
>>16298951
Funny how as a "climate denialist", his "cherry-picked graphs" almost always show surface air temperatures rising.
My point is, it's a starting place from which to drill down to the source data, which is fundamental to OPs question.
You should be able to drill down to the source data from climate.gov or noaa.gov, but those sites are astonishingly useless for source data.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 04:01:36 UTC No. 16301363
>>16300620
To be fair, all .gov sites are notoriously programmed like shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:17:17 UTC No. 16301439
>>16296250
>So my question is how do we square the old data with the new when the amount of change we're trying to avoid falls within that margin for error?
>Genuinely asking. Research papers on it would be cool if you have it.
Denialists demand that we recheck all of our temperature records at least once a decade, and then they get pissed when they get the exact same result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berke