/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9234929
White supremacism is not a science. Also meta threads are against the rules.

>>>/pol/

1. we have reliable ways of reconstructing those temperatures.
2. because the people who think it's fake are at about that cognitive level
3. they're reasonably accurate. they tend to miss a lot of year-to-year variation, but they're pretty good when it comes to the decade-scale trends. we know this because we've had decades to test a lot of them, and they stand up fairly well.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

>>8985845
>I don't know jack shit, therefore it must all be nonsense!
listen here, you two-bit easy bake oven:
there are two stable isotopes of carbon: 12 and 13. most carbon is 12, but there's a little 13 out there. they tend to behave identically except when it comes to biochemistry; living organisms that fix carbon from their surroundings tend to prefer 12C over 13C, so organic carbon is isotopically lighter than inorganic carbon.
what the squiggles on a graph show, to anyone who can find their ass with both hands, is that there's been a steady decline in the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2; this means that something is adding in a lot of isotopically light (i.e. organic) carbon to the atmosphere. where could all this organic carbon come from? fossil fuels.
this crucial line of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from the use of fossil fuels. if you're too ignorant to understand how any of this works, that's your problem, you overdraft fee.

>>8988602
>independent research
oh, I see. when we scientists talk about "independent research" we mean "research conducted by a completely different team to either corroborate or refute some other team's results".
and when you say the same phrase, what you mean is "a document formatted to look like a journal paper that doesn't contain original research and wasn't written by anyone educated on the topic, but which supports muh uhpinions".

>>8943855
>Paid shills. Stop referencing that dishonest clod John Crook. He has no credibility
nice ad hom. by your standards, I can ignore anything written by Watts, Motl, Monckton, etc., since they're dishonest, not credible, and (literal) paid shills.

>>8943867
>John Cook's derivation of 97% BTFO right here. He discarded 99% of the non-agreeing scientists from his sample
A complete refutation of this trash is found in the very first comment on the vixra link you posted:
>False dichotomy: "Either an individual chose to endorse or they didn't. No other possibilities exist." is a fallacy. An individual or abstract could endorse, reject, or say nothing about the consensus, and as clearly stated in the Cook et al paper the percentages were derived _from those that expressed an opinion_.
>Cook et al stated they emailed _all_ authors whose emails they could find - 14% is a very reasonable response rate for surveys from an unrelated institution by all standards (5-20% expected).
This tired old argument claims that if a paper doesn't say anything about the consensus position, it should be treated as rejecting the it. By this """"logic"""" I could """"prove"""" that biologists reject evolution, since most papers don't explicitly mention evolution.

>>8943880
>Al Gore has similar views to climatologists
>therefore everything he says about climate is an accurate representation of what he thinks!
are you really this stupid?

>>8841261
more or less this

>>8841312
underrated

>>8841814
>I've been living 50m from a beach for 25 years, the water level is still exactly where it used to be.
lol what is eustasy

>>8842246
apex zozzle niBBa

>>8842764
most of the record isn't fine enough in resolution to get down to century-scale changes, but a large excursion (like we're seeing today) would cause a massive and reasonably persistent isotopic signal due to ecological disruption. when you fuck with large scale ecology, even if the event is too short to be recorded directly, it's possible to see the aftermath in micropaleontological markers and stable isotope geochemistry.

>>8762300
>Oceans have warmed a few hundredths of a degree well within measurement error
um, citation fucking needed? the shallow oceans have warmed significantly more than that.
also, the point I'm making is not that the oceans have warmed, but rather that your interpretation completely discounts all possibility of oceanic warming.
>Solar variability? That would be more an effect of down-welling radiation.
Um, exactly how do you propose that solar variability is an effect of changes in down-welling radiation here on Earth?
Assuming you simply mistyped and meant to say that solar variability can AFFECT down-welling radiation, that is perfectly true but misses the point I made. Because other things can also affect down-welling radiation, it's irresponsible to ignore solar variability. if you see a decrease in down-welling radiation, for example, is that indicative of a decrease in greenhouse gases or of a decrease in solar output?

>muh (solar activity mediated) cosmic rays
first off, most of your cited references DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your claim that the purported effect is driving the observed warming. BTFO as usual.
secondly, solar activity is trending slightly downward, not upward, which (under the logic you're pushing) would cause cooling, not warming.

>>8762304
iwin.bmp

>>8727410
Notice how when deniers speak, they always make vague, non-specific statements such as
>Hansen, who has literally been wrong every single time he has opened his mouth.
It allows them to maintain their sense of denial without actually knowing what the predictions are, what the models project, or what changes are actually occurring in the Earth's climate system. They can't name any specifics because they don't know them, they're just circle-jerking with memes and buzzwords without any actual substance to their arguments.

It's truly pathetic honestly. They probably couldn't name a single model, or a single climate dataset, or . It's just a bunch of misinformed idiots that get all their information about climate change from biased conservative media sources.

Key words:
>any well known climate researchers and what they have published
by making a blanket statement to the tune of
>HURR THEY'RE ALL WRONG ALL THE TIME
you've just gone and proven that anon's point. congratulationsuplayedurself.djkhaled

This is going to be one of those threads.

Man, I'm really getting tired of these threads.