/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12583614
>Remember we're supposed to have already lost all coastal cities
No we aren't. Some sensationalist politician or newspaper may have said that but no peer reviewed paper has ever made that claim (feel free to find a paper that does say that). The changing climate has not only followed scientific models very accurately but in some cases exceeded the rate of warming predicted

>>12441568
yeah

>>8859145
man made CO2 is enough to cause change

the ipcc has been conservative in their predictions and information due to fearing for their careers and being called alarmists by oil shills - yet a simple google search will tell you their predictions do come true

the pollution of the US and the west is already in the air from back when they were underdeveloped, so i don't know what this guy means there
people should starve so he can drive his car or what

>>8623869
Well, ice cores, some of the most reliable paleoclimate data (although keep in mind its only measuring arctic temperature, CO2, O2, etc.) shows that CO2 has been relatively stable over the past 420k years, cycling between ~280 maximum to 180 minimum cycles averaging ~100k years between cycles.

>>8623905
>>8623909
Hmm. I guess science can never make predictions right? I guess the entire purpose of science is to not make projections or predictions, right?

What is the definition of science?
>Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

First off, most projections about climate have been underestimated, not over-estimated:

SLR has been underestimated:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=9A975B329EA97F22214EE2B1EE64C30F.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Sea ice projections have been underestimated:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

IPCC estimations in general have been mostly underestimated rather than overestimated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

>>8537089
>doesn't know how to read a chart with multiple timescales

This triggers the climate deniers btw

>>8379917
But model predictions have been reliable.

>>7201842

Sea level rise is also predicted perfectly fine, since that is currently mostly a function of thermal expansion, this is also an extremely good proxy of temperature predictions.