/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12304186
So his response to record temperatures being set is the percentage of days over 95F? This is a non sequitur.

He incorrectly averages stations instead of averaging over space. And he calls all adjustments "fabrication" without even looking at why they exist. This guy is really dumb.

He also cherrypicks by only looking at US data. Globally, adjustments have reduced the warming trend. Is that a fabrication too?

>>11121135
>Especially data from the 1880's and early 1900's, what makes you so sure that is accurate enough to be used?
The instrumental data goes farther back than that, but only data past the 1880s was determined to be accurate enough. This is partially what Berkeley Earth was set up to determine. You should look at their conclusions and the work of Zeke Hausfather. What makes you think it's inaccurate?

>But that's horseshit because our infrastructure and ecosystems can already deal with the weather which has much more extremes that constantly change.
Do you understand how averages work? Extremes vary around the average. If the average temperature increases then you will experience higher extreme temperatures. So the extremes of the future are going to be worse, and the extremes of the present will be common.

>Cities have gotten warmer and warmer as they've gotten bigger yet ecosystems continue to live.
You can survive torture, so why avoid it?

>>10554967
>The global temperature
>Only shows US temperature station data adjustments
Gee I wonder what happens if we look at all the data NOAA uses instead of cherrypicking one country. Surely we'll see they're lowering temperatures in the past and increasing them in the present. Oops, it's the opposite. Damn those corrupt NOAA scientists, trying to hide global warming!

>>9506530
Forgot to attach NOAA data.

>>9037371