/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9453683
>were rapid changes in climate good for the ecosystem?
I dunno, why don't you ask an ammonoid or a blastoid or a eurypterid?

>>9103051
>I won't listen to one of the top five research institutions in the nation!
>I'll only listen to THE GUBBERMINT
remember when deniers kept refusing to read anything from a .gov domain, claiming that it was all a government hoax? and now that Orange Daddy is in power and is having his mooks take down all the data and reports they can, suddenly NOW the deniers trust the government. pic related.

>Volcanos create more co2 then all humans combined
a common lie pushed by deniers. human activity actually produces ~100x as much CO2 annually as do volcanoes.
a while back I even crunched the numbers and found that even if a supervolcano blew up tomorrow, it would still not put volcanism on top.

>the gassiest of magmas are maybe 0.1% CO2 by mass, and a supervolcano eruption puts out somewhere upwards of 10^12 tons of ejecta. let's be generous and say that a really really big eruption (on par with the one that created the Fish Canyon Tuff, arguably the largest eruption known) would be ten times that size. That's 10^13 metric tons of ejecta, or (again, a generous estimate) 10^10 tons of CO2, or 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Wow! Ten BILLION tons of carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere in one massive blast!
>Except that human activity emits THREE TIMES THAT MUCH IN A SINGLE YEAR.
>http://www.d.umn.edu/~mille066/Teaching/2312/Elements%20Articles/Self%20Elements'08%20supervolcanoes.pdf
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Calvin_Miller/publication/240779372_Supervolcanoes_and_their_explosive_supereruptions/links/54412bf20cf2e6f0c0f6021d.pdf
>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

>>>/pol/ you fagtron

>>8874087
>He discusses potential error levels in his article. Oh, you just skated past that didn't you?
he straight-up admits (on p. 264) that pre-1900 (and especially pre-1857) readings were done using open systems, and were therefore unreliable.
why are you basing your argument on data points that your own source admits are practically worthless?

>>8761176
>>8761193
>thinks that science is about austistic memorization of random facts instead of knowing how to interpret data
look, I autistically memorize random facts for my own amusement, so I understand the appeal, but knowing random figures off the top of your head doesn't make you an expert. it's all about knowing what those facts mean in the real world.

>>8761201
>le graph of clouds
>NO IT'S NOT CLOUDS IT'S SNOW
>IT'S DEFINITELY ALL SNOW AND THIS PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOWX

>>8761208
>It's gone down by 20ppm!
MLO CO2 readings have never hit 426. you made up a bullshit number off the top of your head.

>>8761210
>can't reliably predict one flip of a coin and he's gonna predict the totals of 1000 coin flips

>>8757780
>babby's first libertarian post
yes yes, we all get that you took econ 101 and now think that you understand how everything works. no, I'm not being sarcastic, your simplistic theoretical approach based on a high school level reading of Wikipedia really IS superior to the empirically tested ideas of thousands of experts who have collectively studied national economies in the wild for decades and decades. yes, you're verysmart.bmp

>>8757335
>she's literally worse than trump. she cannot speak a single sentence in error-free german.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJI2F0XKh_Y
yeah yeah, thanks for reminding us all how disconnected you chuckleheads are from reality.