/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15093367
The data is extensive, and projections have been accurate so far.

>>15079374
>I guess you have no proof any of the research is trustworthy
Here's the proof.

>since the best you could do is a report by a non-scientific body that isn't even presenting original data.
The original data is in the citations. Why did you lie about global warming being only tweets by non-scientists?

>>15030309
Why are you lying?

>>14839820
>Making models based on misunderstood data isn't a prediction.
What data was misunderstood?

>In fact the models have been unable to predict any of the real climate for decades. For example the pause in warming.
Why are you lying?

>>14828944
>which use shoddy data
Such as?

>have never been right
Why are you lying? Pic related.

>>14793870
Whoops, forgot to post the projections.

>>14764463
>You're carbon copy platitudes for starters
What?

>And the fact that environmentalists have been 100000% wrong historically
That doesn't sound very scientific. Here are climate projections being proven correct. Did you take this into account?

>>14741475
>The default position on simulation work is garbage in.
Nah. The default position is you have no argument against peer reviewed research that has been replicated over and over again.

>If neither you nor I understand whether or not anything is the paper is meaningful
If you don't understand the paper then your opinion is irrelevant. Don't ask for proof of you don't want it.

>I would say that linearizing every relationship from co2 output to reduced gdp is an oversimplification of the extremely noisy ties between those things.
Your opinion is irrelevant.

>It implicitly assumes that climate projections are correct
They have been so far. We can only act based on the knowledge we have, not on your wishful thinking that all the knowledge we have is wrong.

>The burden of proof is on you to explain why the assumptions made in the article are reasonable.
The article does that. Try reading it instead of making yourself irrelevant by dismissing it with no basis other than wishful thinking.

>>14720147
No.

>>14702576
>The IPCC isn't a legitimate source of info
Why not? It just compiles published research and data. If you don't like the IPCC then just read the researchfor yourself.

>the "projected models" are all bogus
Wrong. Pic related.

>as exposed by the IPCC email leaks
Which email leaks?

>>14670392
>The main driver of climate change is not CO2.
Nothing you stated supports this claim.

>> Of these, H2O is responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse effect.
>> CO2, CH4, N2O and O3 combined only account for less than 10%.
Non sequiturs. Most of the greenhouse effect is just keeping the Earth at a normal temperature instead of a big ball of ice. It's the change in greenhouse effect that causes warming, and this change is due primarily to CO2.

>> CO2-based temperature models predicted much higher temperatures than currently observed.
Wrong.

>>14645053
Correct. Weather is determined by chaotic fluid dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate is determined by how much energy is in the atmosphere, not how it moves around. They aren't comparable.

>>14552230
>except climate "science" which wasnt correct a single time in the last 50 years.
Why are you lying?

>>14520120
>why have climate scientsts' climate predictions have fallen outside of the 95% confidence level 100% of the time over the past few decades?
They haven't, they actually been shockingly accurate. You haven't looked at any but you're OK with just making up blanket statements. Your brain is broken.

>>14488629
>A perfectly consistent track record of modeling it incorrectly.
How so?

>it's clear that your "models" are nothing more than retroactive curve-fitting because they get it wrong every single time.
Wrong, and doesn't even follow.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378