/sci/ - Science & Math

>homeopath says vaccines are evil
okay

>>8996895
>It should leave you with a few things to ponder.
It certainly makes me ponder why you think that linking to Kent Hovind is going to help your case. Literally all that is in his seminar is him saying that a bunch of scientists are wrong, without bothering to bring in any evidence in support of his theory.

>>8996914
>Why don't we talk about how misleading evolutionist depictions of ape-men are?
No, let's talk about why you posted a photoshopped version of Lascaux cave paintings. (It's reasonably well-known that there is only one human depiction in the caves, so you were bound to get caught.) I mean, if you Creationists will needlessly lie about such petty things, how can your claims be trusted when it comes to big important things?
You don't get to tell flagrant lies, ones that even you can't twist into plausibility, and then try to change the subject. Stand and deliver!

>>8868823
nothing about glaciers is in the listed source.
and for that matter, how is it that the figure displays data through ~2005, when the paper you claim to have gotten it from was only published in 1982?

why must deniers always lie about where their copy-pasted, unsourced, poorly labeled, and misleadingly scaled figures come from?

>>8709296
>misalign two graphs
>"no no, it wasn't me! it was the WARMISTS that misaligned the graphs by faking the data!"
niggapls

>>8709316
>Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions...of about 50%
does it occur to you that a paper published in 2013 (and written in 2012, probably using data running only through 2010) might have trouble reporting emissions through 2015? seriously, we went over this in detail something like 5 threads ago, and you kept insisting that you were reporting actual measurements rather than projections.
if climatologists tried to claim that a prediction was actually a measured result, you deniers would shit your pants with rage. but when you do it, it's all fine and good because a) it's okay when you do it and b) you don't realize you're doing it because you don't actually read papers, you just look at the pretty pictures.

I'll give you the same rundown I gave you the last time you tried to take this weaksauce bullshit in here.
Okay, let's assume those modeled results are accurate IN THE PAST. after all, the model is made to fit the past in the hopes of also fitting the future. since the paper was written in 2012, and detailed information takes a few years to become available, let's say it was made using data from 2010, and therefore that the modeled results up until 2010 are reliable indicators of the actual data. still with me?
total emissions rose ~30% between 1990 and 2010. so:
1.3 = (1+r)^20
r = 1.3^(1/20) - 1
r = 0.013
that's a 1.3% growth per year, well below the rate in Scenario A.

note also that Hansen et al. (1988) assumed that emissions of CFCs and other poorly-understood trace gases would continue to grow at the same rate. not only did they admit IN THE VERY PAPER that those particular figures were only rough estimates, emissions of those gases shrunk to nearly nothing BEFORE 1990.

so in summary, you cited a paper to claim something it doesn't say about a different paper you didn't read. nice try.

>>8600144
let's try it with the full quote
>AR4 didn't make any predictions about the interval you spoke of
please show me which predictions AR4 made "start[ing] at 1979" like you claimed >>8599998

yes I know, pesky little shill tangential arguments like bringing up the fact that you just make up bullshit off the top of your head. meanwhile, you're throwing a tantrum instead of just admitting you got caught in a dumb lie and moving on to the next.

P.S. you really don't know what a baseline is, do you? let me make it clear:
a baseline is WHAT we're measuring from, not WHEN we're measuring from. a common baseline is the global temperature averaged across the 1880-2010 interval. they take that temperature and set it as the baseline to which reported temperature anomalies are relative. that is, an anomaly of +0.5C means that the temperature measured at that time is half a degree warmer than the average for that entire span.
where you and people like Christy get into trouble is by misaligning graphs that use different intervals as their baselines. to make a hypothetical example, if one temp anomaly is relative to the 1880-2010 global mean, and another is relative to the 1979-2000 global mean, you can't compare them directly. (this is because the global mean temperature is not necessarily the same across those two different intervals.)
make sense to you?