This image is 500 pixels by 300 pixels, meaning it is made up of 150,000 pixels.
If you take the average of all 150,000 pixels the resultant color is R:120 G:164 B:127 (a desaturated green).
How could you possibly give me this exact color by only measuring a small subset of pixels? Say you took 50,000 measurements, surely you would still be off by a few hues or shades.
This same principle applies to claims of global climate change. How could you possibly assert a global increase of 1 or 2°C by measuring a few thousand points on a 510.1 million km2 sphere?
precisely, and the heat island effect around most temperature sensors certainly effects the data.
Chase Gonzalez
I appreciate your reply, this question genuinely bothers me.
Most responses I get typically allude to satellite measurements, but I contend it is impossible for any constellation of satellites to accurately capture a measurement for the thermal properties of the entire globe at any given time, especially given how difficult it is to capture this information given the added challenge of a 3rd dimension (not only temperatures at surface levels, but the entire column of air above it).
Brandon Smith
lol
70.07% 219,219,112 / 29.93% 75,87,219
Tyler Parker
>This same principle applies to claims of global climate change. How could you possibly assert a global increase of 1 or 2°C by measuring a few thousand points on a 510.1 million km2 sphere? Aw shucks well guess its okay that I drive my lifted f350 30 miles a day to the walmart and and the ikear, my great great grandkids can KISS MY ASS HEEYEAHHHH
Jackson Perry
>How could you possibly assert a global increase of 1 or 2°C it's called math retard. everybody who denies climate change is an inbred fucking hillbilly
>heat island effect around most temperature sensors this x1000000
Nicholas Clark
tfw a nice breeze btfos your urban heat island. an area with a lot of trees or construction might feel warmer than an open area
Christopher Evans
>it's called math what is called math?
Liam Lopez
>it's called math retard. everybody who denies climate change is an inbred fucking hillbilly
>durrrr it's maff but I'm too dumb dumb to elaborate
James Garcia
I can appreciate the maths, that's never open to debate. It's repeatable, consistent, and well understood.
My claim is the source data cannot be as accurate as depicted. The number of variables is impossible to control for.
Carson Morgan
A random gauss sample could get you close, depending. The dark spots would be known in this metaphor. It is silly to say that BC you don't know the exact average you can't reliably measure it.
Justin Moore
>t. Climate shill fuck off penguin lover
Juan Richardson
>thinking a predictive model of reality merely relies on averages >being this retarded gas yourself, wait you already are.
John Butler
Oh you read State of Fear too?
Angel Jenkins
Genuine question, what would the margin of error be if we were to randomly sample 50,000 pixels in this case?
And what if the sample isn't random? What if we simply sampled the same 3,000 or so points day after day because our sampling equipment was not mobile?
Nicholas Gomez
it isn't about controlling for variables more or less, you kike propagandist. it's about predicting the change in the variables you do know, which isn't difficult at all to do with the available computing power (more so to climatologists).
Grayson Wood
>muh heat island effect >muh spatial variability Yes, these are known issues. Climate scientist who work on this shit adjust for heat island effects by comparing urban vs rural long-term stations to compute bias corrections. But then retards scream "you fudged the numbers! Conspiracy! Fraud!". As for spatial variability, they make explicit maps of climate anomalies, which (surprise surprise), show most the globe in red. But retards say "can you make it simpler, like distill it down to a single number?". So they try that but retards claim "you can't average something that is spatially variable!". Facepalming ensues. Yes, communicating spatiotemporal statistics to the public is hard. I used to work at NOAA and dealt with retards (including many scientists!) all the fucking time.
Assuming you hate your great grandparents for using trains and cars with leaded fuel huh faggot?
Grayson Richardson
stop being reasonable you fucking shill
Thomas Robinson
statistics and hypothesis testing. Essentially you have an arbitrary threshold for probability of an event occurring, say less than 1%. In this case the event is the difference between the means, the true mean and the sample mean.
the more interesting question is the thermal translusence of the atmosphere... are they capturing the temperature on the ground? or the temperature of the ground infrared photons as they interact with the air on their way to the sattelites?
>Oh you read State of Fear too?
never read that one, I've read other books of Michael Crichton's though, i'm a fan of his work.
Joshua Hernandez
Oh no! One year was different from another! However will we recover?!? I remember shills in 2010 saying "from 2000-2010 there was no warming... checkmate tards". You can see that plateau on the graph of atmospheric "mean" temperature. So that's true. Know what isn't on graph? Oceanic heat content. That kept rising. Turns out the warming was there but just not in the atmosphere.
you're the one whose original diagram only showed three years exactly, it means fuck all
Benjamin Howard
Read it tomorrow. You'll shit your pants.
James Wilson
In the 70s they told us all there was going to be an ice age soon. Still waiting
Levi Adams
What was your role at NOAA? As a pilot I respect the hell out of your work as it generally keeps us safe, but Christ almighty even with a constellation of satellites and some of the worlds greatest supercomputers, you can't tell me dick about CURRENT weather...thank God for PIREPs.
What data is that image based off of? I assume GOES, POES, and JPSS, which only date back to the 1980s, so it seems a bit facetious to call it "Record warmest" when that data only goes back 30-40 years.
Jaxon Robinson
funny how the raw data looks a lot different than the adjusted data
How dare you questions Science, hethon! You're going to Science HELLLLLLL
Jacob Lewis
>atmospheric translucency/opacity That's actually a very good question. Turns out that people tracking suspended aerosols in the atmosphere found their concentration increasing dramatically over the decades, which in turns increased opacity and solar dimming. That is, the atmosphere was receiving less solar radiation (a major source of heating!) than previously thought. Yet temperatures still rose, leading some to think we've actually underestimated the warming effect due to greenhouse gasses.
Aaron Johnson
everyone was on acid in the 70s. keep that in mind. and Keeling only had 15 years of CO2 data from Mauna loa at that point and nobody took him too seriously.
I was a hydrologist at NOAA. Yeah, the weather forecast models need some updating for sure. It's gotten better as they throw better supercomputers and satellites at it, but I still personally look at the Euro model for any decent forecast. Not sure what data went into that figure, I just pulled it randomly. But you're right, it likely doesn't incorporate any pre-80s data, so read into it what you will.
To be fair, the world doesn't give a shit. We've had plenty of periods with higher CO2 concentrations than 400ppm. The planet did fine, and will continue to do fine. The issue is human health and civilization. We're not robust enough as a global society to deal with some impacts. And it'll mainly affect the third world. Mercedes Marxists in the US and Europe who love to scream about climate change will be fine for the most part.
Jaxson Hill
>We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. - Maurice Strong, organiser of the first UN climate summit, 1992 >We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. - US Senator Tim Worth, 1992 >A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect. - Richard Benedick, US State Department, 1992 >No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world. - Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988 >The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order. - Mikhail Gorbachev, Communist Idiot, 1996 >For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established. - Jacques Chirac, former president of France, 2000 >One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. - Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official, 2010 >So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. - Stephen Schneider, lead author of IPCC reports >None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state. - Kevin Trenberth, lead author of IPCC reports dear climate shills, we piss on your global carbon tax scam
Lincoln Cruz
Everything you think you know, but written in the early 2000s. Incredibly relevant to today's climate.
i'm a scientist, i only care about the science here. i don't give a shit about the carbon tax jew. but while we're talking politics, fuck the fossil fuel shills.
Justin Walker
>50,000 measurements, surely you would still be off by a few hues You'll be off by only a tiny amount though, you'll be able to tell that the average is dull green. The underlying assumption is you've measured a representative sample, ie the real weather and your data set have the same features. > How could you possibly assert a global increase of 1 or 2°C by measuring a few thousand points on a 510.1 million km2 By taking measurements for years and seeing each of your few thousand points have trended upwards by a couple of degrees. >heat island Not all the thermometers are on heat islands so we can compare and compensate for that effect.
Leo Robinson
>fossil fuel shills you mean the pro-Paris shills? big oil is pro Paris after all... >i don't give a shit about the carbon tax so admit that the carbon tax is yet another world government back door attempt
Totally agree, my computer nerd brethren. And the fact that the real world measurement in 3d space is done with such an amazingly small slice of volume.
Jordan Ross
>Everything you think you know
can you be more specific?
>Not all the thermometers are on heat islands so we can compare and compensate for that effect.
but you don't.
Michael Scott
fossil fuel shills realized they could maintain positive PR and make a quick buck through carbon tax scams. Of course it's a world government backdoor to jew the US and Europe out of money. They're the only ones stupid enough to pay. China won't pay and they're the largest gross emitter.
Jordan Hall
bitch shut the fuck up
Caleb Gray
If I randomly sample 30 pixels from that image I could with high accuracy predict the average color of the total image with.
Luke Mitchell
The answer is yes
Lincoln Lee
Harold Camping predicted the rapture would take place on May 21, 2011. It didn't happen. He said that May 21 was the spiritual rapture, and that the physical rapture would happen on October 21, 2011. It didn't happen.
Like Harold Camping, the global warming hypothesis supporters have been plagued with failed predictions that have destroyed their credibility over a period of decades. These people want money for phantom problems, and they want to use the full force of the government to extort this money from tax payers. Al Gore in particular made an ass of himself by predicting in 1997 that Manhattan would be completely submerged by 2015.
Ethan Gutierrez
goyim btfo tbqh
Jeremiah Bell
How about you try thousands of years instead of 150 and see if the trend matches?
Here you go homey. Now inbf "CO2 lags behind temperature rise, checkmate faggot". That's true, it does. The ice ages in the quaternary were not driven by CO2, but by rather the Milankovich cycles which determine the relative position of the earth to the sun. However, it shows that CO2 is intricately tied to temperature such that they can affect each other.
>sphere How do you know this is a sphere, if it's 510.1 million km2? How do you know it's not a plane? Have you taken elevation measurements at every point?
Dylan Peterson
Only significant CO2 release by humans will be the day of the rake.
Intersting thread point, OP I appreciate a non slide thread for once.
Alexander Long
>However, it shows that CO2 is intricately tied to temperature such that they can affect each other. correlation does not imply causality, regardless of whether it's lagging behind or not. What this does show, however, is that the long term trend painted by the alarmists does not exist.
