/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12129920
why are you straight up just lying? climate models have a fantastic track record.

>>11120995
looking pretty fucking good to me

>>11072040
>Anything, there was a Norwegian one recently
Show me.

>How do the scientists who contribute to the IPCC make a living?
Through their job. Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

>A carbon tax could destroy how modern society operates
Why are you being such an alarmist? In reality the consequences of not having a carbon tax are far worse than having one.

>due to our reliance on cheap fuels - the current population won't be willing to change their lifestyles.
So you think supply and demand doesn't work?

>Show me how the computer models are true.
You can read the literature explaining the physics the models are based on. Also, pic related. Now explain why they're wrong.

>Huh?
You are confusing their conclusion being correct with believing them.

>>11044766
Why are you comparing models which predict global average temperature, land sea blended. to an observation data set consisting of only weather balloons in the tropics? You aren't trying to hide something are you?

>>11016828
>but we don't know how much, too many variables and forecasts about the future are just forecasts, we have no idea what the earth will look like in over 100 years.
Speak for yourself.

>They cannot predict what the weather will be like in 10 days and you tell me they can tell how the world will look like in 50-100 years?
Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

>We need real changes and solution on the table, and raising taxes is not a solution, most of the world gouvernements are fucking shit at fixing problems and you think giving them more money will it ?
The solution had nothing to do with who gets money. Making emissions more expensive reduces demand. It's very simple economics.

>Also the kid who is spamming climate change is just a puppet
Then why are you talking about her instead of scientists? Because she's a convenient target that allows you to avoid the facts.

>>10986653
>IPCC and such has been very wrong with their past predictions.
how so? the IPCC tends to underestimate warming

> CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas with only a trace effect, especially in comparison to water vapor.

completely wrong, water vapor can't cause any warming on it's own as the amount in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on temperature. Which Co2 increases, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere further increasing temperature. your statement just isn't based in reality.

>I think that NASA and this crowd has a history of trying to push their agenda by manipulating data.
you think, but you have been unable to demonstrate this and have to rely on cherrypicked apples to oranges comparisons.

At this point all you've proven is you have opinions which you can't substantiate with evidence. I think you need to re evaluate your beliefs and work on your critical thinking skills.

>>10641374
>Because they have shares in them themselves.
How do you know?

>Because that's exactly what you'd expect them to be doing if climate change was real. They are playing their part of the "bad guy", however the denial funding is simply theatre, as the majority of mainstream media is pro man-made climate change, as are all of the environmentalist groups who are funded privately.
Why do they need a bad guy? If they wanted to convince everyone that climate change is real they would just say that it is. Your idiotic conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it and makes no sense. You sound mentally ill.

>As far as the science goes, CO2 is an effect of temperature, not the other way around.
That's empirically false. The greenhouse effect is directly observed and based on fundamental physics and chemistry.

>There is not one peer reviewed paper that can show man-made CO2 changing the climate.
That's a lie. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

>There is not one climate computer model that can accurately simulate the climate, there are far too many variables involved.
That's a lie. Pic related.

You already know these are lies, you have no integrity.

>>10629380
The Population Bomb was criticized by many scientists and was never supported by a consensus of evidence. If anything denialism is more analogous to it. Also, climatology is validated by correct predictions, while Erlich is not.

>>10614231
>I can't understand how would we conclusively know the physical mechanisms when our predictions have been wrong for 20 years
Which predictions based on the physical mechanisms have been wrong?

>We know for a fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature. We know this because of laboratory testing and can very accurately predict temperatures in laboratory environments.
That's wrong though. You can go outside right now and measure the amount of heat being radiated towards you by CO2 and other gases. The other side of the equation is how temperature reacts to that radiative forcing, but that change is essentially independent of the source of the radiative forcing. So at that point you've already proven CO2 is the primary cause of whatever long term change in temperature you're observing.

>I haven't caught up to recent studies. But all of our models in the 00s have been completely debunked with real world data.
Totally false. Where did your get that idea?

>So much so that Al Gore was sued (I think by the EU, but could be UN) for being a massive doomsday propagandist twat
LOL first of all this is obviously the type of fake news you would read on Facebook. Second, what does Al Gore have to do with our climate models? Try using your brain and looking at what the scientists are saying instead of parroting what you read on social media.

>You should be skeptical of climate change just as any other theory.
You are confusing skepticism with denial. One uses rational inquiry while the other avoids it.

>But how much of a effect do we have on this world? And is it to the point we need to enact serious legislation? Probably not
Based on what?

>>10602343
>I don’t even get what you are trying to say.
That's exactly my point. Anyone with basic knowledge in climatology would understand what I'm saying.

>The point was that although CO2 can contribute to warming temperatures the water vapor plays a much more significant role.
Yes, which I already addressed. Even if water vapor was 10000 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2, you would still need to explain what changed the concentration of water vapor. Water vapor concentration is purely a function of temperature. You need to explain what caused the temperature to change which then caused water vapor to increase. This is why the effect of water vapor is part of climate sensitivity and not a radiative forcing. If you don't understand this then it's time to go back to school instead of playing with the adults, kiddo.

>There are also many other variables at play in the Earth’s climate, and a simple greenhouse gas model is not sufficient to predict reality.
Not only do you have to show that climatologists have somehow missed a bigger radiative forcing than CO2, you also have to explain how our direct observation of CO2's radiative forcing is wrong, since this radiative forcing matches that required to produce the observed warming. Good luck! Until that happens you'll just have to accept the current theory, which has been very successful so far.

>>10597595
>The Butterfly effect
That would be applicable if the long term temperature trend was chaotic, but climatologists have already determined that it isn't. There's a reason the butterfly's wings create a hurricane, a local weather phenomenon caused by the chaotic turbulent flow of heat, and not a global temperature change.

>if we can't predict the weather 7 days ahead and seasonal outlooks are hit or miss then why do we even attempt to say we know enough about the climate to simulate it and then conclude we will all burn in fire and brimstone?
Because of the above and also because we've already done so successfully.