/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11533832
>how much time has to pass before you admit that you were wrong?
>80 years? 100? 200?
The only prediction the denialists make is that global temperature is going to fall but that never happens.
https://www.nature.com/articles/436897a

>>11072040
behold the power of models which deny AGW

>>11042558
>in fact, there is nothing "common sensical" about following models that have consistently and falsely predicted imminent apocalypse for decades

what models are these? climate models have proven to be extremely accurate

>>11020215
well they've been pretty much dead on so far

>>11012511
lookin pretty good to me remind me again how models that don't take into account anthropogenic effects are doing?

>>10957699
>What does “settled science” mean?
Every attempt to prove the theory wrong has ended in miserable failure

>>10698320
Wrong on all counts

>>10653672

'Chaos' is just your lack of information - we know from examination of ice cores and other geological samples what the natural fluctuation of CO2 levels and temperature is on Earth, and strangely enough our mass production of greenhouse gasses via industry strongly correlates with a period of abrupt out-of-wackness

>>10650163
I agree, basing the economy on denier's theories that have failed all predictions and letting global warming go unmitigated is retarded

>>10596460
>https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk
Should be sufficient evidence to display merits of IPCC models. Now if you can provide models that have provided more accurate predictions go for it.

>>10159611
>Guess what? We are currently in a miniature ice age and the chart looks like it's gonna dip into even colder territory.
Denialists keep making this claim that temperatures are going to decline, (the only one of their testable predictions!) but it never comes true.

>>10145788
Every time the denialists try to make a prediction about future temperatures, they always get it wrong.

>>9957961
>>9957987

>>9710351
>A fucking 5 year old kid could draw a just as accurate line prediction of their complicated forecast model. It proves and shows nothing. It is not better than 30 IQ fucking prediction applied to the known data.
So climate "skeptics" must have less than 30 IQ.

>muh cooling!

>>9254633
>In addition to lowering their projections every edition
More lies.

> they provide estimates for how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by various GHG's. For CO2, they say somewhere between 33% and 66%. A 33 point window is NOT settled science.
I'd love for you to provide exactly where the IPCC says this considering that the only time such an interval appears is when it is used is to describe what the confidence interval "about as likely as not" means statistically. It has nothing at all to do with how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2.

How much of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 is not even a relevant statistic, since the vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from the normal composition of gases that has made up the atmosphere for millions of years, which keeps the Earth temperate. It's the percentage of the change from that natural baseline which is relevant. But of course these basics are far too nuanced for your troglodyte understanding of the subject.

>For asserting that quasi-crystals exist, Dan Shechtman was called a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling, kicked out of his research group and told to "go read the textbook." He was right. Everyone else was wrong.
Question, how do you know he's right? Because scientists figured out that he was right. Instead of telling me how climatology is wrong, you are just writing extremely ignorant, long debunked lies about it. You are no Dan Schechtman. You are excrement.

>Facts smashing the consensus.
I am eagerly waiting for you to stop having a tantrum and bring a single fact to support your delusions.

>Alarmists are wrong to call global warming a catastrophe.
The only one who has been shown to be wrong here is you, over and over and over and over again. Do you have any shame? Apparently not.

>>8868040
>LOL EBIC! I WUZ JUST PRETENDING 2 B RETARDED XD EBIC FOR THE WIN GUISE.

aka - I've had my shitty arguments blown the fuck out so I'll just pretend like I was kidding, yeah that will get him...

>>8701042
>he got you upset didn't he.
Nah. I've been upset with deniers before in these threads, but it took much more than that.
I haven't called anyone "fuckface" yet.

>Anyway, how about the climate models proposed over the years?
They're pretty good.
I don't know what the hell happened with your graph, but that un-sourced straight line labelled "all models" really doesn't fill me with confidence. You wouldn't happen to be comparing surface air predictions with <700m ocean buoy measurements, would you?

>>8701080
>You're obviously younger because you're trying to argue with someone's actual experience who was actually alive during that time.
Anecdotes really aren't going to convince anyone here but you. Your childhood is not a representative sample of all communications about climate change.

>>8680297
>There's an article about scientific qualms in the theory of Evolution in the BCIM journal (article just came out), so to solve it they added the much needed neutral null. If something has a neutral null, it's falsifiable in some ways (more than before), but really isn't.

One of the biggest hallmarks of a pseudoscience is its obsession with attacking the "flaws" in mainstream theories, since every attempt by them to create a coherent and logically consistent alternate theoretical framework turns into a huge disaster.

>>8590979
>If these things are so important and they are so sure of them why can't they prove them with scientific rigor?

We didn't prove causation, we simply falsified every other competing theory until those were the only ones left.

>>7201815

>>7089432

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

>>6841737

Climate change is measured over decades and centuries, not >5 years. And if you wanted to, you could pick a period like 1945-1955, and say that well, looks like global cooling is occurring. But that doesn't mean you know that the cooling will continue from 1956-2014.

What about the skeptics? How have their predictions fared? Well, not too well. In fact, they're all much worse than the IPCC.