/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10024008
>>10024010
>>10024011
>scientific consensus changes in the face of new evidence
>LMAO WHY CAN'T THEY KEEP THEIR STORY STRAIGHT

>>10024017
>>10024021
>>10024013
>doesn't understand the difference between sudden and gradual change
It's the difference between slamming into a wall and coming to a slow stop. Life can adapt to a change over millions of years, but every single time there's been a sharp change there's also been a MASSIVE extinction. Like on this >>10024013 graph; what you fail to mention is that each one of those sharp changes fucking sucked to live through. It doesn't matter that "hurrrrrr 100 million years ago temps were higher" because LIFE HAD TIME TO ADAPT TO THOSE CONDITIONS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene%E2%80%93Oligocene_extinction_event

>>10024024
>>10024030
Arctic sea ice is on the decline you brainwashed turd. Notice how in the graph you posted it shows a slight decrease in volume over the period? Notice how the 2018 line is on the lower end of the 2004-2013 average? This is why I fucking hate deniers. Because the evidence is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE but you're so focused on "owning le libs" because of America's retarded team sports politics that you will never take an objective look at it.

>>8629948
>>8629950
>>8629944
>>8629953
>>8629963
Again, 4 replies (now 5!), are you new to 4chan or something? Are you trying to make it seem like you're more than one person or something?

Again, you still have not posted a .pdf or direct link to your source, just a source-less image taken out of context, hmmm. isn't that considered cherrypicking, the very same cherrypicking you claim to despise?

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
I guess this graph from this NSIDC source is not valid either?

>Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2013/04/was-esmr-screwy.html
>the ESMR (Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer) 1973-1976. It was a much simpler instrument than the SMMR, SSMI, SSMI-S, and AMSR which started flying in 1978 and since. The more recent ones have two very important improvements over the ESMR -- they use multiple channels (think of it as colors) and they use both horizontal and vertical polarizations rather than just total power.

>>8629963
Wrong. I know little on this topic, and I'm researching it right now. ESMR was a completely inferior way to measure sea ice, which is why the switch to SMMR was undertaken and why observations don't start in 1972.

>>8629963
NSIDC has nothing to do with the IPCC you cunt. IPCC doesn't do their own research, they don't collect the data, they don't publish peer review paper. It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers. That's fucking it.