/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10461218
Scientists don’t really know anything, full stop.

>>10461218
They know that it’s currently warming and it’s warming because of human activities.

I majored in geology for my undergrad and from what I read, we should be in a ice age right now, about 2 degrees colder than we are. Might sound minor but this shift in just a few degrees would be really bad for people. If it wasn’t for the industrial revolution, we’d be dealing with ice walls and desertification.

Only bad thing about maintaining temperature equilibrium is that it is acidifying our oceans, since we are still producing huge amounts of carbon.

>>10461295
Uh....no. The next glacial period isn’t due for tens of thousands of years.

>Why don't scientists know anything about climate change?

They actually do know a decent amount about climate change. The core problems is that one we haven't even fully figured out fluid dynamics yet and two climate change (or "weather" by brainlet standards) is in totality an astronomical phenomenon that covers a wide spectrum of subject matter. Which is why everything including the sun gets blamed for it.

The question is how much are we to blame for it at the local level.

>>10461340
>Which is why everything including the sun gets blamed for it.

No one’s blaming the sun for the current warming trend.

>>10461350
Stupid people are.

>>10461378
>IT'S THE SUN
>data shows solar activity is at a 50 year minimum.
>IT'S THE SUN
I never know whether to laugh or cry.

>>10462039
In addition, the increase in thermal energy is concentrated near the surface rather than dispersed throughout the atmosphere like we’d expect if increased solar radiance was the cause.

>>10461218
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>10461295
ice age proper wasn't coming for 20k years in any case, and global warming will push it even further off
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

>>10461240
>By warming, I mean they keep adjusting the thermometer readings to show what they want to believe instead of what reality shows.

>>10461222
Cannot no muffin Xd

>>10462039
>My "science" has been blown the fuck out so badly that I now have to just make shit up.

>>10462294
>so much stupid, where to begin

us =/= global

>>10462084
>Check out my propaganda site!

>>10462305
>The world is getting hotter, but not at any place it can be measured.
Got it.

>>10462294
>July 3rd, max temp, measured in F
I can cherry pick too. Look how much warmer it's getting!

>>10461218
Scientists know everything about climate change, but they're saying it's bullshit, so they paid a bunch of actors instead.

>>10462387
Yeah. They paid crisis actors to cover up the 9/11 hologram in the Clinton email server so that Soros and his cabal satanist lizard people can install socialism in the minds of true patriots, also buy more brainforce++ and ultramanlymanpills from our store.

>>10461218
It's correlated with masturbation, the more you masturbate the higher the temperature apparently.. causation does not imply correlation though, but this is the masturbation patterns for the last 5K

>>10462306
>doesn't refute any of the points made in the link

>>10462310
>If I place a hotpocket in the microwave and the center doesn't heat up, then the average temperature of the hotpocket surely didn't go up

>>10462416
that can't be right because we should be leaving an interglacial period so it should be getting colder but it's getting warming
That's how you know it's really bad

>>10462395
You're probably being sarcastic but it's actually amazing how close to the truth that is.

Is there a reason to be against global warming change theory other than christfaggotry and plain contrarianism?

>>10462884
Yeah. Government fucking with the economy and taxing stupid shit. Giving political power to self-serving globalist organizations like the UN. """experts""" sucking up all the grant money with stupid fucking research.

>>10462896
Oh no, my commoner money that I would have totally not been spent on my vices.

>>10462903
Wow what a great argument!

>>10462906
Refute that

>>10462896
>Stupid fucking research
I dont really know what you mean but if your saying to not give scientists money to do research then you're the cause of humanity not progressing at a steady pace and having to resort to hoping for a supergenius to be born and give out solutions for free
>b-but all that money just goes to waste om random and irrelevant research
The school and universitets are not going to give any fucktard money to study average size of anal prolapse.

>>10462300
Sunspots are cooler than the rest of the surface of the sun.

Predictions are way harder than observations. What we collectively witness in society is retroactive observation and then extrapolation, which is incorrect. i.e.

>the climate has been warming, therefore the climate will continue to warm at this same observed rate

rather than

>we have all of the variables we need at this time to accurately predict that the climate will warm by X amount in Y time, and can falsify this

There's a reason their "predictions" are always vague as fuck. Scientists can't predict the weather beyond 10 days, much less 10,20, and 50 years.

>>10463014
Climate is not weather

>>10462310
>i haven't got fatter, if my height is the same
hurrrr durrrrrrrrr

>>10463019

Weather is a product of climate, and they are tied. You know what I'm saying, disingenuous faggot, the point is that you can dedicate as much time and study as you want but something as multivariable and complex as these are not easy to accurately predict. Economists can't do it for major economies, professional sports bettors only eke out 2-5% win rates over a coin flip, and academics who have never had a real impetus to meet standards for falsifiable accuracy are certainly not about to blow the world away with predictive ability. The field of "climate science" is a joke even compared to the ones I've mentioned as there is no market for it.

>>10463014
>>10463019
Elaborating on this because I know you can't be fucked to learn for yourself

Weather would be when it is going to rain. This can't be predicted with any certainty beyond a few days. However, I can predict nearly the exact amount of rain that will fall on your house over the course of a year. That is a weather pattern which is a part of climate.

>>10463033
>I can't be fucked to learn the difference between weather and climate
Lol

>>10463038

You're a fucking retard and I never implied that they were the same. Fuck off and stop replying to me if that's all you have to say. You're regurgitating a canned response from reddit for people who do conflate weather and the climate. They are still highly associated, complex and multi-variable systems related in that they are nearly impossible to accurately predict over an extended timeframe, where the slightest alteration can redirect their course entirely.

>>10463046
Guess how I know you have no idea what you're talking about

>global warming

>>10463049

Because you're a myopic dumbfuck who couldn't debate me in good faith and resorted to cliche responses

>>10463064
Try "because you can't understand that weather patterns are more predictable than weather which is more predictable than economics and gambling" or "you think any system including stochasticism can't be predicted over large timescales"

>>10463079

I didn't say any system, I said this system. And you have no evidence to say that it can be accurately predicted. I'm not going to blindly trust some politicized academic who's spent his life holed up in a research lab conducting study to turn around and make a major, massive prediction and just take it at face value. That isn't in their job description. That isn't what they do on a professional basis. They are "closest" in terms of their qualifications but that doesn't mean anything when there is no market or industry that specializes in accurate climate predictions and that have to meet an agreed upon threshold of falsifiability or lose their job. Which is why it is a weak, weak justification. Soft sciences are notoriously awful at anything forward-looking.

>>10461218
How can scientists know anything when science isn't even real???
Checkmate liverals!!

>>10462395
You'd legit get at least a dozen hits a day on a site like this from your average krank/schizo person like this OP. They'll even buy your sugar popsicle "male boosters" and write life-changing testimonials.

I mean, you gotta give people like Alex Jones some credit for knowing how to tap into, and herd gullible cranks into meek, obodient wallet providers.

>>10463088
>"We predict an increase in temperature and disrupted weather patterns over the next few decades"
>Temperature increases
>Weather patterns change
>"you have no evidence to say that it can be accurately predicted."
LMAO at your life

>>10463103

>Um, things are going to go up
>things go up
>See! I was right!

Try again.

>>10463112
Try debating the science instead of this grade school "u cant no nothing" nonsense

>>10463115

It isn't science, it's back of the envelope material. There is no rigor to it. They were saying the climate would be much worse 15 years ago. Give me what you believe to be a comprehensive, hard prediction for what the Earth's climate will look like in 10 years.

>>10462300
Lmao nice try

seems like they know it exists and is caused mainly by human activity. i don't think they really know what's going to happen

>>10462306
>literal ad hominem
It's how you know someone has no arguments left

>>10463131
>They were saying the climate would be much worse 15 years ago.
Who?

>what the Earth's climate will look like in 10 years
The average global temperature will increase by roughly 0.2 degrees and weather patterns will continue to be disrupted. If you want anything more specific then that you can pull up papers and read which systems are expected to be disrupted by this increase in temperature

oy vey of course climate change is not real you really need all that plastic, and oxygen is g-d so don't worry about the amazon, just send your prayers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVtIl3dqDbM

>>10463148

>Who?

The global warming lobby, including promoters and scientists alike. This isn't a new issue.

What if the climate plateaus or even reverses trend over the course of the next 10? Would you tap the brakes on your hysteria or double down and come up with a "new" model?

>>10463170
>What if the climate plateaus or even reverses trend over the course of the next 10?
It won't. What are you suggesting would cause the reversal?

>The global warming lobby, including promoters and scientists alike.
So surely you can cite some

inb4Gore

>>10463170
>what if what if what if
Who's really ignoring reality because of their dogma here?

>>10463170
Wow people weren't 100% right, and a complicated issue needs more research? that means the bible is right.

>>10463183

>What are you suggesting would cause the reversal?

Improper variable weightings and incomplete information, the usual suspects as far as completely fucking up any kind of predictive model.

>So surely you can cite some

I'm not going to trove through everything from that time period. Here's a model that was incorrect thus far:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_Dangerous_Climate_Change_(2005_conference)

Their trajectory was off. And I saved the model you posted so in 5 years I can show that one was off too. Extrapolation is such a bitch.

>>10463184

I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. We've had "the warmest years in a century" and yet we've only just been collecting official climate data in this past century, and the century prior to that experienced mass cooling which, naturally, begets a regression to the mean (i.e. "warming"). It doesn't mean the planet is going to undergo cataclysmic warming moving forward. Scientists are regularly wrong, seriously, so much that was accepted in the past is eventually revealed to be bunk. They aren't paid to be right.

>>10463206
>Here's a model that was incorrect thus far
None of the predictions I've read from that conference are wrong. Are you sure you linked the right article?

>Improper variable weightings and incomplete information
Which variables? What don't we understand well enough that we couldn't predict a reversal if it could happen?

You still aren't addressing the science. You're trying to talk around it in order to avoid confronting well established conclusions

>>10463206
>"the warmest years in a century"

>>10463206
You absolutely are jumping to conclusions, you're making up fantasy scenarios that have no basis in reality. If I were to say "physicists aren't useful if electricity stopped working tomorrow they would have no idea why" You would hopefully say i'm retarded. When you basically just said the same thing.

>>10463276

Physics and "climate science" are nowhere near the same level in terms of rigor. The latter is a nascent, meme field full of politics right now.

>>10463287
>a pure discipline is more mathematical than a multidisciplinary field
Who coulda thunk it

The weather is very strange these days why would I trust climate scientists when scientists can't tell me why I can't build muscle?

>>10463326

Like these don’t see that storms are becoming more and more powerful with more and more energy. C’mon guys.

>>10462378
this
thought there would be more people here on /sci/ that know how to research scientifically

>>10462445
Show me one place that has gotten hotter.

>>10461218
whoa... deep...

>>10463326
>why would I trust climate scientists when scientists can't tell me why I can't build muscle?
Words of wisdom

>>10463287
>Physics and "climate science" are nowhere near the same level in terms of rigor. The latter is a nascent, meme field full of politics right now.

Prove it.

>>10462305
The US has longer and more detailed records than a lot of other countries, and there are minimal older historical records of the oceans and polar regions. The US also has a pretty sizeable land area and is more or less at the same latitude as Europe.

>>10463148
"Disrupted". Implying the global climate has ever had any kind of stasis with precisely identical conditions year after year for centuries.

There is no baseline in a system that is in a state of perpetual change.

>>10463843

Unfortunately I can't, since climate science has no mathematical basis and is a bunch of subjective female tripe

>>10464070

It's like these niggers don't even realize we've been leaving an ice age for centuries now. Polar ice caps are not a "normal" thing in geological history. All we have right now are people trying to cobble together an association with human actions which is basically tantamount to confirmation bias.

>>10464087
100% correct.

>>10464070
>Implying seasonal weather patterns that have remained constant for centuries just change for no reason
You have no idea what you're talking about

>>10463033
Recognizing a quality post