/sci/ - Science & Math

Another thing I wanna add: inevitably there are errors attached with every measurement we make. in chaos theory, a small change in the initial conditions has a massive impact on the result.
Does this make predictions in climate science impossible?

Here's a point-by-point rebuttal of Dyson's 'heretical' views on global warming.

https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/guest-posting-expanded-dyson-exegesis.html

>>10262190
weather =/= climate

fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>10262201
Yeah as i said, weather is short-term, climate is long-term.
I've never been to /pol/ ever

>>10262190
in my country, and it's a shithole country, 7 years old zoomers are learning the difference between weather and climate.

>>10262190
I think a lot of climate science is just basic physics, e.g. the greenhouse effect but what seems much less reliable is the consequences of climate change. I really wish they made specific short term verifiable predictions to verify their models. Pushing their models as dogma really pushes me in the other direction.

>>10262238
I agree with you. Regardless, mustn't you admit the greenhouse effect would have catastrophic effects for many ecosystems, namely aquatic ecosystems, which Earth doesn't give a shit about, but which humans depend on? it could fuck up our entire food chain.
But maybe there are practical steps we can take to prevent that, and actually use global warming as a benefit to agriculture. Genetically-engineered-Carbon-eating plants might be a stretch, but I suppose as a human species we could agree simply to grow enough potatoes to sustain the globe.

Another question that must be answered by climate change "scientists" before we give them any more money is whether we should actually be worried about climate change if it does exist. It seems like they've been very presumptive about there being a need to maintain the climate as-is.

>>10262265
A lot of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed in the oceans, releasing hydrogen ions which have decreased the pH sharply, leaving oceanic ecosystems without much time to adapt.
Sure, it could be a hoax, but do you want to pollute your oceans like this? We can disagree about the details of the long-term consequences, but the general purpose of the climate change movement is working towards a greener, healthier Earth.

>>10262247
Humans will probably adapt, we've been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. That being said we're probably less malleable because we're probably set in our ways to a great extent.
But when we start talking about ecosystems we're talking about extremely complicated biology, yeah some coral reefs may not be able to survive the temperature increase but what effect it will have on humans is almost impossible to predict.
It's not even because I'm against limiting
emissions, I live a relatively responsible life.

>>10262190
> 'probably impossible to predict'
that's a prediction family member

Manufactured uncertainty over climate change, the fundamental strategy of climate change denial, has been very effective, particularly in the US. It has contributed to low levels of public concern and to government inaction worldwide. An Angus Reid poll released in 2010 indicates that global warming skepticism in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom has been rising. There may be multiple causes of this trend, including a focus on economic rather than environmental issues, and a negative perception of the United Nations and its role in discussing climate change.
Another cause may be weariness from overexposure to the topic: secondary polls suggest that the public may have been discouraged by extremism when discussing the topic, while other polls show 54% of U.S. voters believe that "the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is." A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely".
According to Tim Wirth, "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. […] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." This approach has been propagated by the US media, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics. Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan accept the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot." A 2007 Newsweek poll found these numbers were declining, although majorities of Americans still believed that scientists were uncertain about climate change and its causes.

>>10262219
You a fucking idiot. Seriously, go back to /pol/ you utter brainlet. Climate isn't "long-term weather. Jesus fucking Christ, why is it that people always try so bloody hard to make arguments about a topic they don't even have an elementary understanding of?

>>10262190
Look at that nonsense on the board behind him. Someone should make a cartoon called Sonichu to mock what the guy wrote and drew there.