>>15462287
I'm ignoring that this is literally some pdf made by a rando with no training in the subject
>satellite data is a "pure measurement"
Nonsense. Satellite measurements are based on emission spectra of oxygen. Not that the data is wrong, but the published uncertainties are much greater than surface measurements and need constant adjustments. That satellite is not in geostationary orbit and the procedures to get a temperature estimate for a given swath of readings are very complex. Claiming satellite data has the least adjustments is factually incorrect.
He either doesn't know this because he's a rando or he's purposely misrepresenting the data. This is ignorance bordering on negligence. (>>15462147)
>GISS temperature adjustments
Already went through this but the urban island heat effect adjustments are a quarter of a degree and the raw data actually shows a larger warming trend after 2000 and he seems confused about regional datasets and global ones. Again, I'm curious why he chose to stop the graph after the year 2000, what could be his motive? hmmm
>ice cores
Again either ignorance or malicious misrepresentation. The trigger of the interglacial periods are driven by insolation changes due to Milankovich cycles. The climate after is driven by CO2 by the greenhouse effect. This is an incontrovertible property of CO2 that has been measured in experiments and by direct measurements of the incoming clear sky radiation of the atmosphere.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

Good news everyone. NOAA has measured no increase at all in temperature since 2005. This is despite a substantial measured increase in atmospheric CO2…