/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10842566
>But you make all of these points as if they're incontrovertible facts. They're not. It's all theory
The greenhouse effect is an experimentally proven fact. Set up 2 vacuum chambers, one with methane and CO2, the other without.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

The evasion time of CO2 is also a proven fact. We know the evasion time of CO2 from the bomb pulse experiment. When people were testing nuclear bomb it spiked atmospheric radiocarbon beyond natural level. We know how radiocarbon decays, and correcting for the decay the rest is how fast CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (pic related).

Finally the earth is 70% ocean. There's nothing we can do about the water vapor feedback. You can't put a lid over the whole ocean to prevent water from evaporating.

> Science is only valid if it can produce accurate predictions. Climate science has failed to do so.
The models are not perfect, but they represent the best we know about fundamental physics, chemistry and biology. Here's a question, if climate models are wrong how come deniers can't make their own models? The fact is, if you build a model from the ground up, implementing all we know about conservation of mass energy and momentum (for air mass movement) and chemistry, get it pass a peer review process then you'll get similar result to most climate models. Saying that "models are innacurate" is one thing, but it doesn't benefit the science. Show us where the models parameterize certain things wrong. Most climate models are available publicly, even their nightly snapshots for example NASA's GISS ModelE
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/