>NOAA finds "new" data that the slowdown in global warming that has been observed in the last 15 years... didn't actually happen
>Looking at their old data from the 90s, and looking at the new data from the 000s, they concluded that there wasn't enough warming to make their field relevant
>so they ignored the more accurate buoy data, and instead relied on more innacurate forms of data which fit their narrative
>they then concluded, through fiddling with models, rather than any actual new data, that the rate of warming hasn't changed
>specifically, using ships to measure ocean temps generally gave a more innacurate, and warmer reading, while buoys gave a more accurate, cooler reading
>the scientists decided they didn't like the cooler data that broke their models, so they omitted the data that they didn't like, and "altered" existing data to fit more in line with the ship readings
How is this not literally cooking the books because they have become irrelevant and all thbeir models are proven to be incorrect?
This is why climate science is a joke and the polic considers their science to be bunk
The article is saying that global warming never paused and then at it has been rising for the past 45 years.. then it goes on to say the readings are all probably false? what?
This exact article is posted on reddit with 800 comments all circlejerking over global warming and how bad it is
Connor Ward
OP didn't read the article he linked... lmfao >When the researchers corrected the data to take this "cold bias" into account, they concluded that the oceans had warmed 0.12C per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as previous estimates of 0.07 degrees.
>"Only a small fraction of the ocean measurement data is being used by climate monitoring groups, and they are trying to smush together data from different instruments, which leads to a lot of judgement calls about how you weight one versus the other, and how you adjust for the transition from one to another," said Zeke Hausfather, the new paper's lead author. Hausfather and colleagues decided to put together three independent data sets from satellites, buoys and robotic floats to find the true scale of ocean warming, so there was no mixing or matching of data. "Our approach was to create three separate ocean temperature records from the three different instruments, and it turns out that all three agree really well with the new Noaa record," he said. "The conclusion is that Noaa got it right, the scientists at Noaa were not cooking the books or manipulating the data in any way and that three independent sets of data back up their results." The controversy that surrounded the original paper proved a strong motivation for attempting to replicate the findings says another author, Dr Kevin Cowtan from the University of York. "We were initially sceptical of the Noaa result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office. So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think Noaa got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees."
It then goes into saying how politicians subpoenaed the paper's authors...Are you going to interpret this as the government corrupting science by forcing the climate truth? You know, an interpretation that you could only make if you didn't understand the paper.
Juan Peterson
Why reply to these threads? Just hide them and let them 404. By biting you just encourage them.
Gavin Hill
I'm still trying to figure out why that pic is meaningful to any climate change discussion.
Carbon sequestration has been known for a long ass time.
Jordan Hernandez
Is climate change real or a hoax?
Aaron Ortiz
This will never make it to mainstream news as it goes against the whole Climate Change Politics.
Also, I was just thinking of making a post on the REAL threat: Ocean Acidification.
Carter Hill
hoax
Xavier Davis
It's not about sequestration.
There's people who go >too much CO2 is bad for plants and while this is true, it only happens at 1000's of parts part million, not the 400-800ppm range we are going to experience.
Easton Jones
The only hoax in this thread is your graph that baselines the models at 1983 to add error.
Oh look, it's another episode of "corporate paid shills tries to stir up controversy regarding climate change in order to stop new regulations and an user decides to shitpost about it on Veeky Forums" again.
What OP claims is actually what the article says: the data didn't fit the models, so they revisited the data and worked it out in order to find a subset of data that fits the models.
Climatologists are they own enemies: they cannot agree on how to measure global temperatures today, but they can "safely" say the temperature of the earth 1000 years ago with less error than today's measures!
Josiah Perry
what do regulations do?
Joshua Howard
Instead of making shit up, why not take off the tinfoil hat and argue with the scientific evidence? Is talking about the science on a science board too hard for you? Maybe you should go back to your ghetto board.
Angel Butler
>so they revisited the data and worked it out in order to find a subset of data that fits the models. That was what happened for the NOAA report that the real subject of the article verified.
The point of the article is that the NOAA approach was justified.
Juan Ramirez
Force investments that don't give you returns and makes you vulnerable to companies in countries without the same hampering regulations.
There's a pretty strong economical incentive for companies to try and muddle the scientific discussion about climate change? Why do you think so many US politicans are climate deniers [spoiler]it's because the companies that sponsor them is telling them to.[/spoiler]
Benjamin Murphy
So wait, are you implying that a large increase in the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere isn't connected with on average warmer temperatures? That's a pretty radical claim. Physics tells us that warming should definitely occur from that. If it's not warming, why is that,and what evidence do you have that explicitly says it isn't warming?
Ryder Rogers
All of your predictions have failed to come true. You've been wrong about everything.
It has been almost 30 years.
Fuck. Off.
Yes, I mad.
Bentley Smith
Your entire perspective on this is emotional and contrarian. You're not a heroic skeptic saving the earth, you're a stubborn fool that doesn't respect the scientific process of continually improving and re-assessing results.
Anthropogenic climate change is very real. If you have evidence you think shows it isn't, present it. Or fuck off. This board is shitty enough without grandstanding asshats acting like they're the smartest person in the room.
Adrian Sanchez
How i it possible that a near 20% increase in the level of a greenhouse gas isn't related to average warmer temperatures?
Jace Morris
Even with a number of years of declining levels of solar insolation due to sunspots,temperatures continued to climb. How did that happen?
Jose Scott
>Climatologists are they own enemies: they cannot agree on how to measure global temperatures today, but they can "safely" say the temperature of the earth 1000 years ago with less error than today's measures! Liar.
Jacob Walker
OP's position is literally unfalsifiable. He ignores the data that shows very clearly that CO2 has been increasing sharply at the same time that we have arrived on the scene and starting liberating huge amounts of CO2 from fossil fuels, and muddies the waters by acting like one set of data could not possibly have had any errors or forcing on it while upholding the data that happens to almost kind of support his vision as perfect, and proivides no reason for this.
Why do you think the buoy data is the best data? Explain that.
Anthony Carter
Seek and ye shall find
Samuel Martinez
>CO2 rising is bad prove it
>because it's heating up the planet and?
Luis Foster
>your predictions >You've been wrong I missed where I said I was personally involved in the research.
Jordan Bennett
Ocean acidification leading to damage to fisheries that supply a large portion of the population with food.. Changing rain levels causing flooding in some areas and droughts in others. The fact that warmer temperatures have knockdown effects on things like ice levels, which result in greater warming due to changes in surface albedo. Melting permafrost and deep ocean methane deposits potentially worsening warming levels even more. Rising sea levels leading to many cities potentially becoming uninhabitable in the future and requiring expensive and socially stressful resettlement of millions of people.
All of this is completely solvable with abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of renewables and nuclear power, and we could even speed it up by ripping CO2 out of the air and turning it into carbon fiber to be used as a cheap and useful construction material and resource.
I'm not a commie idiot who thinks we have to abandon modern society and live in tribes or some shit, I'm a pragmatist who would rather not deal with ugly consequences for social laziness in the future.
Did you know we can now rip uranium out of the ocean with plastic ropes and have access to something like 150 trillion tons of it? Look it up. Fossil fuels are garbage. Coal kills like half a million people a year,
Elijah Robinson
You will be dead long before it matters.
Carter Gutierrez
...
Nolan Smith
So you admit these are bad, is that right?
Justin Martin
Why shouldn't I care about the future? If life is meaningless then caring about the future has as much weight as not caring about it. I like to solve problems, it interests me.
Aiden Cox
>Carbon sequestration has been known for a long ass time. True.
Still, it is important that the rate of sequestration increases with increasing CO2. Already the planet is noticably greener.
Benjamin Adams
this
Nicholas Clark
Not him, but as I have been repeating (apparently to a blank wall), it's not whether or not there is going to be warming from increased atmospheric CO2 (there almost certainly will be) but the rate and extent of said warming.
Warming in the original range of models of 2-8C will be catastrophic. Warming in the now apparent range of 0-2C is nothing. Nothing. NOTHING.
I don't know why that's such a controversial thing to bring up.
Luis Watson
On what timescale? You're giving figures and not giving a time scale for them. If India and Africa start burning a shitload of fossil fuels while lifting themselves out of poverty and progress remains slow on emissions control here, and some of the worse effects of permafrost melting occur, this shit could get ugly.
all it takes is one freakishly warm summer to liberate a motherfucking shitload of methane from siberia and kick off some ugly shit.
God help us all if deep water methane goes off.
Zachary Ross
You got proven wrong again.
Cry about it.
Nathan Gonzalez
These threads give /pol/ a bad reputation, jesus
Andrew Young
>the 400-800ppm range we are going to experience Exercise: Current linear trend is about +2 ppm/year and if it continues we will have 800ppm in 200 years. Imagine the future trend follows the current annual growth rate of the global population, about 1%. Starting from an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 400ppm, when will we reach 800ppm? Will you live to experience it?
David Foster
>Ocean acidification leading to damage to fisheries This "science" is as suspect as the climate "science". More "scientists" were caught omitting data and massaging it to fit the narrative, meanwhile ocean PH is cyclical and well within natural variation. The largest threat to ocean fisheries is the 7 billion monkeys roaming this earth, many of whom like to eat fish.
>All of this is completely solvable with abandonment of fossil fuel Wew, you clearly haven't thought this out or are extremely ignorant on just how much fossil fuel you use every single day, directly or indirectly. Unless you are shit posting from a tribal mud hut on the plains of the Serengeti you would not survive long without them.
There is an obvious ploy to convince people like yourself to cough up your right to the natural bounty of this earth and give control of it by consent to parasitic bureaucracies who are only too willing to take it and use it for their own means. They do this by frightening you into submission and promise to save the earth on your behalf. In this respect man made climate change it is no different than any religion, just new age and technocratic in nature but the theme is always the same. This church will probably want to build a large mechanized totalitarian global army powered by the fossil fuels you so willingly gave up to save yourself and smack you around until the end of your days. You are full of emotion and throwing reason right into the trash can, that makes you open for all manner of abuses.
Henry Ross
The Clathrate gun is blathering pseudoscience worse than the stupidest denialist crap posted here. Read more and talk less.
On the timescale that has been discussed since AGW came into existence you ass.
Nolan Hill
>This will never make it to mainstream news as it goes against the whole Climate Change Politics.
>Also, I was just thinking of making a post on the REAL threat: Ocean Acidification.
Do you know why the oceans are becoming more acidic?
>enlarged with fictitious data I see what you did there.
Ethan Lopez
> Look at me being stupid! The actual data (the gold line) is clearly marked in the legend as Hadley Climate Research Unit 3/4 (HadCRU3, HadCRU4) data. It is placed at 1978. God forbid that someone actually add real data to a UN IPCC prediction graph. That would be so wrong.
The value of the temperature anamolies is 0 at 1978. The value of the models is 0 at 1978. So the baseline is correct. You're real complaint is that the UN IPCC later on added enormous amounts of variance to the models to hide their utter failure. Unfortunately showing this graph demonstrates that the original prediction didn't have that level of variance in the models.
And sorry buddy, but the SimpletonScience ad hominem, er I mean "explanation" machine failed.
Just because it's hard to see the middle points doesn't mean they're not there.
Hunter Brown
>Cherry pick much?
How could it be cherry picking when both graphs show the exact same data?
Nolan Phillips
w-what am i suppose to believe?!
Andrew Evans
>Physics tells us that warming should definitely occur from that No physics does NOT tell us that
Hudson Mitchell
I've asked this in these threads before and I never get an answer.
Assume AGW is real. What the fuck do we do to stop it/reverse it?
There has been so much time and money poured into producing these graphs that tell us we're fucked, but what have we done to stop the actual climate change? All these billions of dollars into green tech and carbon taxes and everyone's still screaming doom and gloom.
Do we put a solar shade in space? Release sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere? Put giant blankets of reflective material on the poles? What the fuck do we do to make people happy and stop this arguing back and forth over this? It's like a bunch of people arguing about the physics of a stall while they're in a nosediving plane.
Jaxson Allen
>What the fuck do we do to stop it/reverse it? Obviously we sell our sovereignty to a global socialist government and organize the genocide of whites
>Well here's a graph that uses the exact same scumbag trick Are you illiterate? Base-lining at one year is just a way to add error from that year to the models. The only correct way to do it is to baseline on a range so that variability of one year does not carry through.
>And here's the graph from UN IPCC AR4. Lie. The data overlayed is not from IPCC AR4 and is obviously not the same since it goes outside of the original data.
>The baseline year is 1978. Lie. You have no way to know the baseline.
This has been explained to you multiple times and you have yet to respond to it. You are a lying scumbag and you know it.
Cameron Roberts
Finally an answer. I'll give that a read over the weekend. I just hope we can pick one and fucking go for it soon rather than keep trying to plug the holes of a sinking ship with the public's money forever. Fossil fuels won't be around forever, but they're not going away overnight either. Policies that make currently used forms energy expensive hurt billions of people right now, and climate change will hurt billions in the future. There's got to be a way to balance that without taxing everybody to fucking death.
Austin King
>Gavin Schmidt gets roasted: Fucking really? We've already done this one. You posted that link before, and MULTIPLE PEOPLE pointed out that it utterly failed to meaningfully answer any of Gavin's objections. It doesn't even address most of them. Stop reposting garbage.
>Assume AGW is real. What the fuck do we do to stop it/reverse it? Cut down on CO2 emissions. The first rule of holes is that you have to stop digging.
>There has been so much time and money poured into producing these graphs that tell us we're fucked, but what have we done to stop the actual climate change? Making the graphs doesn't actually cost much: climatology's not exactly a high budget field, and science only makes up a tiny portion of government funding.
>All these billions of dollars into green tech and carbon taxes and everyone's still screaming doom and gloom. "Billions of dollars" is actually a pretty small amount of money. The amount we would need to be spending on green tech if we want to catch up is probably orders of magnitude more than we currently are, and the longer we put it off the more expensive catching up becomes. If we'd gotten our shit together earlier this would have been much easier.
>Do we put a solar shade in space? That would be very expensive, and not all that practical. It's also way outside the tech we're going to have any time soon anyway.
>Release sulfur particles in the upper atmosphere? That would work, but there would be severe consequences for doing it. From what I understand, it's best thought of as a "last resort" kind of thing.
>Put giant blankets of reflective material on the poles? Won't do much.
>What the fuck do we do to make people happy and stop this arguing back and forth over this? It's like a bunch of people arguing about the physics of a stall while they're in a nosediving plane. Convince the people in charge that aerodynamics is a field we actually understand, and that they need to push the nose down.
Jace Martinez
>the increase in sunspots between ~1925 to 1980 caused the rise in temperature between 1905 and 1945! >oh and the recent warming during a decline in solar activity? I'm just going to say it's fake because it disproves my claim and I want to be right. absolutely pathetic.
Luis Butler
kek, this guy is using climateaudit and Watts Up with That as sources.
Zachary Brooks
...
David Foster
>I don't understand it >therefore scam
Anthony Wood
Climate change conspiracy believers are brainlets
Jackson Robinson
global warming is a worldwide conspiracy for extorting taxxpayer grant money from teh politicians in order to fund a lavish lifestyle of teh so-called "scientists"
Adrian Cox
...
Hunter Wood
...
Leo Gomez
Aren't those climate scientist interns like medical interns? They take a beating to start with but the carrot is an opportunity to worm their way to highly lucrative careers? I think the potential is unlimited because its not just a human life they are saving, it is the life of the planet itself! And if you think some MD's have a god complex wew, we haven't seen anything yet me thinks...
Out of curiosity I went here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists and picked the first name on the list... Ernest Afiesimama, Nigerian weatherman and now... He is currently the Programme Manager, Offices for Africa and Least Developed Countries at the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva, Switzerland >Geneva, Switzerland That my friends is a well played endgame!
Samuel Gray
>Research Scientist >Lucrative Career
Do people actually believe this?
Landon Fisher
We could find an empty patch of continental shelf about 1600km^2 and farm kelp like koreans farming minerals and vespene. That would be a suitably dense carbon sink to pull the excess CO2 out of the air.
Luke Smith
You talking about people who are completely uninvolved in research of actual science. Everyone on Veeky Forums is either an engineer or a degree at all.
Isaiah Brown
>the carrot is an opportunity L0L, riiight fgt pls
Gavin Bennett
>Ernest Afiesimamand >has a well played endgame he is not a chessplayer, he has no endgame
