>>939450116
I'm the climate change guy, or anti-climate change. I have tons of charts and studies showing how nobody on this planet has never shown evidence that CO2 affects anything and measurements and observations show that nothing's happening. The science deniers have nothing, just what they were taught in HS English class. They resist at every level, reducing it down to "everyone knows this" or "it's common knowledge", or "You must be a flat Earther", without having a single shred of evidence that backs up their cult. Leftism truly is a religion. They get their headlines in the morning, don't read into the article at all, or fail to understand the details (like OP in this thread), and run with that until they're force-fed another headline.
4chan Search
3 results for "9883be7cdd85cb18ad96c611e3f0ca2c"
>>938625560
They're "climate attributed" or "reanalysis". They start with real data at some point, but then they feed it through several formulas to adjust the past down and warm the future. They create heat where there are no measurements.
Here's the formula:
(W/m2) = 5.35 x ln (C/C0)
That 5.35 in the middle is a made up variable. Where did it come from? Nowhere. It's completely invented to show warming. They change it as needed, which is why there are so many different warming scenarios. Why do they even need models? Why not just use the raw data in the places that have stations and observe the trends? The raw data shows no warming and disproves any relation of temps to CO2.
They're "climate attributed" or "reanalysis". They start with real data at some point, but then they feed it through several formulas to adjust the past down and warm the future. They create heat where there are no measurements.
Here's the formula:
(W/m2) = 5.35 x ln (C/C0)
That 5.35 in the middle is a made up variable. Where did it come from? Nowhere. It's completely invented to show warming. They change it as needed, which is why there are so many different warming scenarios. Why do they even need models? Why not just use the raw data in the places that have stations and observe the trends? The raw data shows no warming and disproves any relation of temps to CO2.
>>937889009
>why is nearly every region claiming to be heating faster than the global average?
Because they're fucking models!
There is no such thing as a global average and it's stupid to think that's an appropriate way to measure anything. A few years ago there was a "hottest year evah". The entire globe cooled slightly and the poles warmed slightly, something like -38°C to -36°C. No ice melted, literally nothing changed, but this swayed the average enough to say the Earth was hotter.
Picrel shows how much data they (NOAA) actually collect and how much is filled in with models. Even the smaller squares are modelled, then run through the playstation again to cover the entire map. There are very rarely records actually broken as we're in a relative cool period right now.
>why is nearly every region claiming to be heating faster than the global average?
Because they're fucking models!
There is no such thing as a global average and it's stupid to think that's an appropriate way to measure anything. A few years ago there was a "hottest year evah". The entire globe cooled slightly and the poles warmed slightly, something like -38°C to -36°C. No ice melted, literally nothing changed, but this swayed the average enough to say the Earth was hotter.
Picrel shows how much data they (NOAA) actually collect and how much is filled in with models. Even the smaller squares are modelled, then run through the playstation again to cover the entire map. There are very rarely records actually broken as we're in a relative cool period right now.