/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10351346
>anthropomorphic CO2
are you a literal toddler?

>>10184827
>Any model may be biased politically or otherwise
read as:
>I will handwave away any evidence I don't like by claiming it's biased

>>9873792
this.
just another case of flatheads attempting what I like to call "proof by shitty instrumentation"

>>9160077
>most heat is trapped by the oceans anyway
not only does this have no relation to the greenhouse effect, it's untenable.
as temperature rises, gas solubility decreases. (remember this from genchem?) this means that CO2 dissolved in the oceans (a major sink of CO2) will at some point start to come out of solution, exacerbating warming.

>You just gotta be kidding me at this point...
in other words, you don't have anything to say

>>9160095
>you are pointing out flaws with one graph showing reality, while it is actually up to you to back up your claim of manmade carbon emission causing additional hurricanes
in other words, you're upset that I'm talking about how shitty your argument is and would rather change the subject.
(also, my claim is not that anthropogenic CO2 causes MORE hurricanes, only that it causes MORE SEVERE hurricanes. and I backed that up >>9158546)

>you can see a correlation if you just look
this shit is what I'm talking about. we don't ASSUME correlations just by LOOKING at graphs. there are statistical tests for correlation that we can make.
besides, Spencer's argument is that there ISN'T a correlation. did you read the page you linked?

>looking at a short span is not enough to derive any conclusions of causality
luckily we've got more lines of evidence than Spencer has.
>this is what you are claiming is happening
nice strawman

>>8753067
>IF they were forced to actually compete, things like that wouldn't happen because any business capable of fucking up that badly would go out of business long before it reached that point.
the food and drug industry in America pre-1906 begs to differ
there was free and open competition, and yet companies still sold tainted food and dangerous drugs, and CHILDREN DIED as a result. but somehow those companies didn't go out of business...and they didn't clean up their act until Uncle Sam made them.

admit it, your argument is basically:
>those examples don't count because it wasn't REALLY a free market!
>gonna do it right this time and everything will work itself out!
you're as bad as the commies that way.

>>8607932
make sure to livestream it

>>8508021
>Yes, it's either science that is repeatable through the scientific method or it is a consensus of opinion.
Um, what a "scientific consensus" basically is is when everyone who tests a hypothesis gets more or less the same result, to the point where all or almost all of the research on the topic is in agreement.

>>8321786
>chimpanzees have changed very little since the split and that we came from them
of all the bullshit in the thread, it's somehow THIS that really grinds my gears

>>7949818
like the entire record of temperature observation by satellite, which covers the last ~40 years of an effect thought to be active for about a century? gosh, that's TOTALLY cherry-picked, right?
so what interval do you think is objectively more valid? if you think it should be longer, you're not wrong, but tough beans anyway because that particular dataset only goes back to 1979. if you think it should be shorter, I'd love to know your reasoning as to why year-to-year fluctuations are more important than the long-term trend.
put another way: we're looking at an effect thought to be present for about a century. why should we only look at the last 20 years? riddle me THAT, cherry-picker.

>>7111330
>wouldn't you choose the one that's talked about more as the "right" answer?
THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE IS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ACTUALLY THINK CLIMATOLOGISTS WERE PREDICTING COOLING IN THE 1970s
TALKED ABOUT MORE != ACCURATE

yes I mad, and am also geoscience