/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8687368
each carbon must have four bonds attached to it, in simple hydrocarbons.
C1 has three hydrogens attached to it, and hydrogen always has only one bond, so that accounts for three of the four bonds. the remaining bond must be to C2.
By the same reasoning, you know that there must be a single bond between C4 and C3.
C2 and C3 each have a single bond accounted for, and are not bonded to any hydrogens; the only atoms they're bonded to apart from C1 and C4 are each other. For the requirement of four bonds to be satisfied, they must have a triple bond.

do you follow?

>>8671161
>During the Ordovician period CO2 levels in the atmosphere were roughly 4,400 ppm, and there was still significant glaciation.
aaand the end-Ordovician glaciation coincided with a sharp drop in CO2 concentration.
>CO2 levels have historically always lagged behind temperature increases.
Not actually true. USUALLY warming is kicked off by things like Milankovitch cycles, but the warming related to the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous extinctions FOLLOWED massive releases of CO2 (from the Siberian Traps and Deccan Traps flood basalt provinces, respectively). and if you look at the temperature and CO2 records from recent history, you'll see that temperature lags behind CO2 over the past ~20 kyr.
>if the government was convinced that climate change is natrual and not anthropogenic, 90% of climate scientists would be out of jobs.
here you display your ignorance of how science and public funding of science work. the discovery that Wegener was right didn't put an end to seafloor mapping, did it? there was no mass purge of publicly funded cytology when McClintock's ideas were vindicated, right?
>Its rational to conclude that there is a huge amount of bias coming from this community.
If you think baseless "it sounds right to me" paranoia is "rational", sure.
>Ive seen very convincing evidence that CO2 leads to a logarithmic change in temperature
what exactly is the significance of this? please note that according to the very graphs you've been posting, where we are on the curve makes the relationship between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature nearly linear.