/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9643207
>>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.

discovery of DNA and hereditability by Mendel inspired many other discoveries in medicine and other fields. (Hereditary mechs were known for a millenia but Mendel systematized it.)
What discoveries were inspired by evolution and what did it correctly predict?

>>9643221
>babby's new werd

not an argument unless you argue faggot

>>8602369
>Hansen wasn't talking about CO2 equivalents of human emissions. For the purpose of the model, emission means addition to the atmospheric concentration from any source.

I knew you were going to post this strawman argument:

So let's look directly at the paper, P. 9342 (journal paging), section 4.1, first paragraph:
"Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas EMISSIONS typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely."
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf


Definition: EMISSION - "the production and discharge of something, especially gas or radiation." Nothing in that definition about change in atmospheric concentration.

So what are you doing? You, of course, are doing the John Cook/RealClimate Strawman argument:
1. Rewrite the actual prediction with a "post-diction" based on 20/20 hindsight.
2. Create a new graph that illustrates and/or proves your strawman post-diction >>8600040
3. Claim, "Climate Change is PROVEN!"

This is why you warmists are such contemptible creatures; trying to "prove" your belief system by using strawman arguments to rewrite the past.

>>8530798
>holy shit, I am stupid.
>Jacka and Budd doesn't make PREDICTIONS; as the title would suggest, it's all about MEASURING CHANGES AS THEY HAPPEN. There's no modeling in that paper, as you'd know if you'd bothered to actually read the whole thing.
>>http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/041/24041533.pdf#page=74
Strawman Number 1: I'll pretend they didn't say this. "In spite of high temporal and spatial variability, the data does support small significant trends of temperature increase and sea ice cover decrease compatible in magnitude to those expected as a consequence of atmospheric greenhouse gas increase."

That's right they reiterated the predictions of melting sea ice. A prediction you are now pretending didn't happen.

>Boer et al. also contradicts your boneheaded claim. from RIGHT THERE IN THE ABSTRACT:
>>The simulated accumulation rate of permanent snow cover decreases markedly over Greenland and increases slightly over Antarctica.
>HEY LOOK, MODERATE WARMING IS PREDICTED TO CAUSE SLIGHT INCREASES IN PERMANENT SNOW COVER IN ANTARCTICA
Strawman Number 2: I'll pretend it was about snow cover.
NO! The prediction was about melting Antarctic SEA ICE.

AGW predicted melting Antarctic Sea Ice, as both of these papers demonstrate. Now you history-rewriting shills are trying to change the subject.
Sorry shills, Antarctic Sea Ice grew.

>>8227875
>My post: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong
Now you're flip-flopping, or you're so angry you can't think straight. Deep breaths..., Deep breaths.

>His posts: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong, some mechanism for warming the Earth outside Steffan-Boltzmann must be driving it.
You idiot, Stefan-Boltzmann isn't a heating mechanism, its a description of how a blackbody radiates in accordance with its temperature. If you want a heating mechanism, turn on your heater. Seriously, you've shown how profoundly scientifically ignorant you are.

Again, I never denied the existence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
>>8222990
You must have grown up on a farm, seeing as how familiar you are with strawmen.

>>7455848
Berkeley Professor Richard Muller was never a skeptic. He faked it.

>"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13423/page2/

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

And nobody says the earth hasn't warmed. That's a silly strawman argument.

>>7092091
The only one pushing a conspiracy theory is you. Obviously if a politician is saying it in public, its not conspiring. It open to the public.

Get over your strawman arguments. The only conspiracy theorists are you, thinking that there's a Koch brother, or Oil company hiding around every corner.

>>6663051
Are you implying people would deliberately cherry pick certain aspects of something, then use these aspects to fabricate a complete image which bears no resemblance to reality, and then rail against this fake image in order to substantiate their ultimately baseless claims?

The nerve of you, anon. The unmitigated nerve.