/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8711290
>it was warmer in 5000 BC than it is today
I Can't Read Graphs: The Post

>>8711939
oh look, you posted Beck 2007 again
>better CO2 measurement methods invented in ~1855
>insanely high reported values for CO2 drop to levels consistent with the following century or so, almost overnight
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to be emitted in the absence of major flood basalt eruptions
>physically impossible for those amounts of CO2 to suddenly disappear without massive changes in ocean chemistry
>no biological signals of such enormous swings in CO2 concentration
surely this couldn't be the result of instrumental error, could it?
>published in E&E
zozzle
>http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

>>8596732
SIDS is the medical equivalent of a wastebasket taxon; all it means is that an infant died while sleeping and that respiratory distress of some sort seemed to be involved.

and the attempts to find a correlation between SIDS and vaccines are statistical hokum.
>Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics....For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.
No citation for the rarity of 'crib death', no addressing of changes in diagnosis. about as meaningful as the correlation between vaccination rates and autism rates, and for the same reason.

>two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death.
and what about children of the same age who lived? no mention is made of whether there was a significant difference in vaccination rate between infants who died of SIDS vs. died of other causes vs. lived.
>unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants.
aaand because birth rates are highest in summer and fall, infants will be disproportionately likely to be 2-4 months of age in fall and winter.
not to mention, the paper from which all these correlations were taken used only 29 individual case studies and made no attempt to control for confounding factors.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1647245/pdf/amjph00259-0017.pdf

>>7908752
>1966 during global cooling
so, whenever the evidence proves you wrong, your response is to MAKE SHIT UP and accuse the other side of cherry picking points? cute.
>If it gets warmer, there should be LESS accumulation.
Yes, but rising temperatures in the tropics can mean MORE snowfall in some places. Thanks for proving that you don't understand the difference.

>So there's a 90% chance that things will increase or decrease. Wow! That's some serious predictions.
Reading comprehension fail. Here's what Mankin et al. actually wrote:
>However, internal climate variability creates irreducible uncertainty in the projected future trends in snow resource potential, with about 90% of snow-sensitive basins showing potential for either increases or decreases over the near-term decades.
In other words, for 90% of the localities studied, it's hard to predict what's going to happen. You see, when one actually follows the evidence (as scientists do) rather than try to massage the evidence into supporting a big sweeping declaration (as deniers do), one must be ready to admit that results are a little inconclusive.

>>7908775
>>7908779
>claims temperature readings went flat
>posts graphs showing warming trend
0/10 nice try. today you learn that saying that a graph says something doesn't mean it actually does.

>>7908797
YOU'RE TILTING A GRAPH?
WELL, THAT DEBUNKS CLIMATE CHANGE ONCE AND FOR ALL