/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10231031
>>the greenhouse effect is very well understood.
>Only in a small controlled environment that can't replicate earth conditions.
The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is directly measurable.
https :// ams . confex . com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737 . htm

>we aren't pumping a significant amount of CO2 into the air compared to all other sources of it.
That's simply false.
https :// sci-hub . tw/https :// pubs . acs . org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ef200914u
>It can be seen that the net environmental flux, Fi-Fe, is always negative throughout the period covered by the Mauna Loa record and has become more negative as time progressed. This shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, at least for the last 50 years, the natural environment has acted as a net sink, rather than a source of atmospheric CO2.

>Predictive models for climate change continually fail to predict
See picture. Climate models have a fairly good record at forecasting surface temperatures.

>>10091868
>By being tuned to show warming that doesn't exist.
But model predictions DO line up with observed trends.

>>10091909
>First read the hacked emails from University of East Anglia:
Jesus Christ, this shit is still alive?
If you search through a large enough pile of private corespondance, you're garunteed to find something that can be taken out-of-context to sound fishy. Not only has there been multiple investigations that cleared the CRU of any wrongdoing, but people have been scrutinising those emails for years - if there was something fishy in there it would have turned up by now.

>HadCRUT 4 audit.
From what I've heard that's pretty boring to non-climatolgoists.
From what I understand: The datasets used in Climatology are made by piecing together large numbers of different records, collected by different groups for different reasons. Obviously those records have incompatible formats, and so data-quality issues are very common. However, so long as there's no systematic bias from the errors they're going to be too small to influence the big picture.

>>10091957
>another genetic fallacy - peer review and scientific publishing are a morass of circle-jerking and nepotism.
And you think a literal propaganda mill is a better source than peer-reviewed journals?

>>10086981
>My knowledge of climate predictions comes entirely from newpaper headlines.
>Here's why all climatologists are wrong and shouldn't be trusted..