/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9455450
fluid dynamics is difficult, but some /pol/ack (not sure if it's the same guy in this thread or not) kept popping up in a bunch of climate threads repeatedly claiming that accurately modeling the atmosphere is literally impossible without tracking each individual molecule.

>>9455477
>So BOTH drought AND flooding is due to global warming? You can't lose with that logic.
Climate change messes with patterns of atmospheric circulation. This means that rain falls in different places. Some areas get more rain than they're used to, some areas get less.

>>9345207
>I don't understand how confidence intervals work: the poster

>no methodology
>no discussion
>just introduction, conclusion, and a few figures with no statistics to back them up

also, obligatory
>Cato """"Institute""""

>>9159551
>please stop googling info to appear smart
yes, how DARE I back up my arguments with actual evidence!
does it occur to you that after earning two degrees in geoscience, I might just know this stuff without needing to look it up?
> DRY AIR = NO HEAT CAPACITY, some MOISTURE = LOTS OF HEAT CAPACITY
air has very low heat capacity regardless of the humidity, mainly because its density is incredibly low. good God you are ignorant.
deserts getting cold at night is (as has been explained to your moronic self) mostly just a function of the ground having low heat capacity due to the lack of organic material etc.
>C02 in hundreds ppm concentration = HARDLY MATTERS
I like how you've been talking about small changes causing massive unpredictable effects in complex systems, but when it comes to CO2 (which apparently you can't spell properly?) apparently if it's little it must have little effects. moron.
DNA in the human body is also on the order of hundreds of ppm, and yet it dominates our biochemistry.

>>9159551
>I am contesting the causal chain being unsupported by any mathematic model
It's supported by thousands of separate lines of evidence. Oh, and there's been plenty of modeling done describing how higher global temperatures affect hurricane intensity and frequency:
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI3049.1
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00313.1
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL027969/epdf
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006EO240001/pdf


>You do know it is common practice to do just that?
finite element methods are easy to fuck up when it comes to fluids. SMART engineers use finite volume methods.

>>9010042
>Nicotone is actually good for you
Nicotine can give you cancer.
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jobs_Zhong/publication/14827779_Nicotine_inhibition_of_apotosis_suggests_a_role_in_tumor_promotion/links/573eb63508ae9f741b308f6a.pdf
>http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12493.full.pdfDistrib

>>9009549
2quoque4me
and I defy you to produce an example of an internal document from a climatology lab showing that researchers are outright lying.
You know, like how Exxon produced internal reports showing they knew warming was going to be a problem...and then buried them.
>https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

>>8989373
>Pressed for time? Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
you can keep your special snowflake unique perspectives if you like. I'll stick to sources that can muster a shred of evidence to support their claims rather than dealing in shadowy allegations and innuendo.
being unique doesn't make them worth spending hours on when I could be reading something with actual substance to it.
>Sorry, thought you wanted to actually discuss the topic, not complain about the downsides of video format
it's not a downside, not to the people making the video. like I said, it's a deliberately obtuse format that makes it hard to fact-check. good for entertainment or persuasion, very bad for efficiently exchanging information.
you throw these videos out there and demand that your opponents sit through ten or twenty minutes of a guy making unsupported claims. it's just another form of the Gish Gallop.

>Never said it was alleged, maybe you've heard of implication?
in other words
>let me assume you mean something other than what you actually said, since it suits my argument
like I said, nice strawman :^)

>>8938694
>Energy & Environment
fun fact: they literally published a crank article claiming that the sun is a ball of iron, even after it got trashed by reviewers.
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0704.pdf
the author is a real piece of work.
>http://www.thesunisiron.com/

The Guardian had a good piece about how E&E has become a dumping ground for pseudoscience.
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

>>8868635
>Attack of the Soros shill!!!
Lindzen and Choi (2009) was debunked by Dr. John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and Chris O'Dell (Colorado State University). ThinkProgress did not fund their work or associate with them in any way. All they did was report on the debunking.
>actual climatologists debunk sloppy paper written by deniers
>librul website mentions this turn of events
>OMG SOROS SHILL

>>8868660
>bad data (data altered to fit overly warm ship intake data)
I know you're not interested in actually looking at the methodology, but the measurement effect of ship bucket and engine intake versus buoy sensors is known and corrected for. as is explained in the screencap >>8867928, they factor out the instrument effect when combining different types of data.
a clock that is always exactly two minutes fast is just as useful as a clock that is always on time, when it comes to measuring how much time has passed. similarly, a thermometer that reads 0.5C too high is just as useful as a thermometer that gives a perfect reading, when it comes to measuring warming.

>>8653700
>calls everyone who disagrees with him a SJWtard
>gets triggered whenever someone tells him to go back to >>>/pol/

>graph stops at 1855
>see, recent warming is tiny!
this has been posted and thoroughly debunked so many times I have to conclude you're just trolling. 2/10

>>8588692
>peer reviewed charts
ackshually you didn't. think you did? show me one peer-reviewed paper authored by David Lappi, who made the chart. show me one peer-reviewed paper that contains the chart in question. protip: you can't.
>so what exactly is your point
that guy's point is that heating an object can actually cause parts of it to cool. which is why global warming causing localized cooling is perfectly reasonable.

>>8565535