/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16054968
Woah I remember someone posting this exact question on Usenet when Al gore got big

>>16054968
Those "wrong predictions" are often cherry picked and never represented any scientific consensus or majority view on the issue

>>16054968
Because they were told by so called authorities and they believe it. You're asking people who blindly believe "experts" to think for themselves, it's not going to happen Anon.

>>16055013
Cope.
>majority view
More fallacious reasoning.

>>16055047
>fallacious reasoning
Not as fallacious as claiming "scientists in the 70s all thought we were headed for an ice age" when no, the ones who thought that were far outnumbered by the ones who would have agreed with today's scientists that it's a warming trend

>>16054968
Name one prediction they got right

>>16055055
>appealing to the majority again
The majority of "scientists" are funded by corporations to bake the data or billionaires for malicious reasons. I don't give a fuck what the majority of "scientists" say lmao. Triple boosted retard.

>>16055060
IPCC predicted in 1990 that global average temperature would rise by 0.55 degrees C by 2012.
The actual warming between 1990 and 2012 was 0.39 degrees C, which is off, but not dramatically so.

the two primary reasons I don't take man-made climate change alarmists seriously:
>there are multiple points in recorded history where conditions in the northern hemisphere were significantly warmer than today, without fossil fuel emissions
>how photosynthetic organisms respond to increased CO2 levels seems to be almost universally ignored in projections
and a third point
>given that a majority of the worlds population relies on fossil fuels just to eat, via fertilizer extraction and transportation, what's do be done with these people?

if there IS a problem and it IS being caused by man, the only viable solution is to tackle the overpopulation problem, and NOBODY who freaks out about man-made climate change will approach this subject seriously. something something hitler.

>>16055088
>funded by corporations to bake the data or billionaires for malicious reasons
Not true, and if it was, it would make no sense. It's in the interest of those corporations and billionaires to allow themselves to consume and pollute more. Climate change isn't profitable, climate change denial is.
Like how the tobacco lobby wouldn't finance research that says smoking is bad for you. They would do the opposite.
>"scientists" in quotes
You are on the wrong board.

>>16055107
climate change is profitable when it stifles competition, funds projects, or consolidates industry. the 50 billion EV industry is projected to triple over the next ten years and they are tickled pink by climate change propaganda, as a low hanging fruit example that a child could understand.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss man-made climate change when they are perfectly willing to discuss overpopulation.

>>16055091
>The actual warming between 1990 and 2012 was 0.39 degrees
no it wasn't, global temperatures haven't changed even slightly in the past 40 years

>>16054968
My justification is that you're retarded if you're getting your science from journos

>>16055097
>if there IS a problem and it IS being caused by man, the only viable solution is to tackle the overpopulation problem, and NOBODY who freaks out about man-made climate change will approach this subject seriously. something something hitler.
poor people will pay the bill, by having to endure even shittier conditions. upper class won't do shit. population control is not about hitler it's about not being convenient. plebs are the working cattle, they don't want less of them, they want more, for less. the whole struggle at this point is swindling plebs into accepting it. they are not even hiding it, I've seen an article few days ago saying just that "we have to do with less so we can fit more of you" or some shit like that. there's nothing else to it. and once implemented, they can use it for thousands of years in the future, it's literal gold.

>>16055125
That's factually untrue.

>>16055473
Got a picture of ocean levels rising?

>>16055500
Way to move the goalposts. No one claimed that half a degree of warming would cause dramatic sea level rise

>>16055508
Jim Hansen did, back in the 1990s he predicted that sea level would be up by at least a meter by now.

>>16055013
How convenient that any predictions made in the past simply were the predictions of just one guy and not the majority who agreed with the prediction. I suppose that means that various 'end of the world' prophecies are still valid, since any singular predictions that prove to be wrong don't invalidate the overall prediction and thus we must always be prepared for the inevitability of spaceships following comets to take us up into the stars.

>>16055047
>blindly believe "experts"
How do you know they're not reading and understanding the material the experts are publishing? If you know for certain they're wrong then you must be reading and understanding what the non-experts are publishing, whatever that even means. I'm going to have a guess and say you're not doing that. In which case everybody is blindly believing what they read, which is kind of hard to believe. Also, i don't think a couple of wrong predictions by individuals, some not even scientists, should invalidate an entire field from here on out, that doesn't really seem like a sensible reaction to a wrong prediction. It's also important to include any correct predictions they make

>>16054968
i dunno what to tell you, the earth is warming and can be measured as warming up
this is not a wrong prediction, things will only get worse at current rates

>>16054968
>For those of you worried about climate change, how do you justify all the wrong predications over the past few decades?
By the fact that it is indeed getting hotter, as predicted, and weather is indeed becoming more severe, as predicted.

>>16055703
>>16055702
>oy vey the world is coming to an end, i know its true because i saw it on cnn

>>16055725
Thanks for your input Ivan

Predicting CO2 concentrations and temperature isn't the problem, and so far climate models have been pretty much spot on as far as temp/CO2. The main problem is predicting the effects temp/CO2 has had on terrestrial ecosystems. Like for instance we've found that the north pole has transitioned from mostly having year round ice to seasonal ice. The effects on other ecosystems is still up for debate, like with wildfires places can only burn so much until all the vegetation has burned off. Just don't listen to journalists.

>>16055334
That's why you don't base your opinion on Time covers.

>>16056427
The penguin one isn't even the original cover, it was photoshopped to look like they were predicting an "ice age". There was just a massive blizzard in the US during the winters of 77/78, nobody was saying we were entering an ice age.

>>16055013
Every single one of them is wrong with their individual prediction but together they are right. That is the power of the scientific consensus.

There is not a single scientific evidence indicating that the CO2 produced by humans changes the climate for the worse. Prove me wrong.

>>16056466
>changes the climate for the worse
I guess if you think hotter = better you're right.

>>16056476
CO2 doesn't cause global warming

>>16054968
like this

>>16054968
My best guess is that climate change is simply misdirection to siphon more money from the general populace while the root cause of our climate disaster lies in some poorly explored but likely known area.

>>16055088
>Triple boosted retard.
So for those of you worried about MRNa vaccines, how do you justify all the wrong predications [sic] over the past four years?

>>16058018
what climate disaster?

>>16055013
Reminder that papers reporting X are irrelevent, as it's the media claiming Z that influences what the populous thinks.
People think banning plastic straws is good not because a scientist said it, but because it was repeated in the lying press.

>>16059082
case in point being >>16055334

>>16059082
nobody thinks banning plastic straws is good

>>16060425
People who sell paper straws do

>>16059016
which predictions?

>>16059016
the definition for the word "vaccine" changed in major dictionaries during the scamdemic. vaccines used to be made from deactivated viruses, and they used to give immunity. look up the current definition.

if you looked at statistics instead of what people on TV and people parroting TV tell you to do, you would know from pretty early on that at minimum the scamdemic was heavily exaggerated beyond reason, if not nearly entirely fabricated. just because you ended up finding out that you are cattle in the long run doesn't mean that everyone else was some schizo christian deathshot doomspeaker. it's a cope. you're coping because you were manipulated by a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry through media and government. you were wrong. use it as a growing experience or keep being cattle

Here's a simple algebra equation to tell when where and why there'll be good weather:

2 x times 1 + 9 = 4 where x is how fast the wind blows at the current moment.

Drake of the "Drake Equation" had something similar a long long time ago however it's rather lengthy.

Your answer will reveal the day(s) or week(s) etc. etc. of when again there'll be good if not great weather!

>>16061118
two more weeks
>>16061131
Cui bono? Remember: only predictions that came true

>>16061210
two more weeks then what?

>>16055013
It was consensus that the ice caps would be all melted by now. Just like it was consensus that the ozone wouldn't repair itself.

>>16061249
consensus = midwits' opinions

>>16061249
No it wasn't. You just watched Waterworld when you were twelve and thought it was a scientific prediction.

>>16063582
lol, goyims really are that stupid

>>16054968
>how do you justify
I think they intend to vocalize the sound "sorry" (possibly "sowee") and demand that that should be the end of it. However, the people of "some area" must bear their guilt.

>>16054968
>For those of you worried about climate change, how do you justify all the wrong predications over the past few decades?

Disclaimer: I am climate agnostic. I do not believe we can know the climate.

Anyway, I do not think wrong predictions are a problem. Given what they predicted I'm rather glad they were wrong, but that aside: Wrong predictions are to be expected with any model - especially when you're dealing with something as complex, unpredictable and fundamentally unknowable like the climate.
The real question is whether the predictions are getting more accurate, and whether trend directions of real-life-occurences align with the direction of your improving predictions.
If they do you must act accordingly wit given uncertainty in mind - and as you probably know: when you are uncertain in a situation you better account for the maximum damage you can take to minimise said damage.

>>16054968
I ignore them all because if I didn't I might end up questioning my massive messiah complex and my revolting narcissism

For those of you denying climate change, how do you justify all the wrong predictions over the past few decades?

>>16064845

>>16064847

>>16064849
sea level hasn't changed by a single millimeter in the past 50 years

>>16065736
How many pixels is a milliliter in those pictures?

>>16065736
Global sea level rise is about 22 centimeters. Tides around New York are about 2 meters.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/New-York-New-York/tides/latest

>>16054968

A handful of individuals here and there over the decades theorizing on exact dates doesn't suddenly make climate catastrophe not real. The scientific community has never come together and said "2001 is the year it all ends" or "2015 is the year it all ends, this time for real!"

Since i first started reading about global warming and the damage it would cause in elementary school in 91, all the predictions were off deep in the future. About the only thing that was agreed upon at the time was an sea level and bad weather. Since then, more research has been done, and it's becoming clearer on how bad we're fucked and what the measure of damage will be as time goes on.

We've had gigantic, town erasing fires, massive amounts of flooding, increasing amounts of tornados, and cat 4 and 5, and winters getting more and more mild (and now actually fucking hot in places).

And if climate change don't real like oil execs want us to believe, then why are reach people blowing millions if not billions on bunkers?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/home-and-garden/bunker-mentality-how-mark-zuckerberg-kim-kardashian-tom-cruise-and-other-celebs-are-prepping-for-doomsday/ar-BB1jBsen

>>16066125
>>16064849

>>16054968

A handful of individuals here and there over the decades theorizing on exact dates doesn't suddenly make climate catastrophe not real. The scientific community has never come together and said "2001 is the year it all ends" or "2015 is the year it all ends, this time for real!"

Since i first started reading about global warming and the damage it would cause in elementary school in 91, all the predictions were off deep in the future. About the only thing that was agreed upon at the time was an increase in sea level and bad weather. Since then more research has been done, and it's becoming clearer on how bad we're fucked, and what the measure of damage will be as time goes on.

We've had gigantic town-erasing fires, massive amounts of flooding, increasing amounts of tornadoes and cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, and winters getting more and more mild (and now actually fucking hot in places).

And if climate change don't real like oil execs want us to believe, then why are rich people blowing millions (if not billions) on bunkers?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/home-and-garden/bunker-mentality-how-mark-zuckerberg-kim-kardashian-tom-cruise-and-other-celebs-are-prepping-for-doomsday/ar-BB1jBsen

>>16066179
They'll just zoom in on data until they see a trend. Even if water rose a micron per year climate cultists would spin it into us all drowning from floods in 200 years. When you think about it, there's little difference between climate "science" soothsayers and Christians who believe in the rapture. Only for the Christians paradise is reached after rapture whereas for the climatologists their end of time is more nefariously politically motivated. They'll spend millions on international flights to climate conventions while telling you not to use an air conditioner

>>16066180
>A handful of individuals here and there over the decades theorizing on exact dates doesn't suddenly make climate catastrophe not real. The scientific community has never come together and said "2001 is the year it all ends" or "2015 is the year it all ends, this time for real!"
A handful of individuals here and there over the decades theorizing on exact dates doesn't suddenly make Nibiru not real. The scientific community has never come together and said "1999 is the year it all ends" or "2012 is the year it all ends, this time for real".

It's good that science isn't about concrete predictions but instead just about vague alarmism, otherwise we'd actually be held responsible for the bullshit we say. Trust the experts, listen and believe. They've done all the hard work and lobbied for all the grant money they could ever need, and it's our place to just listen when they tell us to rip out old growth forests and replace them with wind and solar while investing nothing in dirty nuclear energy.

>>16066179
Sea level reconstruction for the past

>>16066355
blow me.

>>16066369
Sub 70 IQ post.

>>16066375

>>16066386

>>16066918
avatar posting is against the rules

>>16066369
>world 4.9
just the carbon in that CO2 is around 1.34 tons. how do I get 1.34 tons of carbon? coal is $110 per ton right now. if I buy 1.34 tons of coal (spend about $150 per year) and I bury it that means I'd be net zero carbon?
can I go buy coal from a mine to bury it? but to be honest that seems pretty suspicious to me, I feel like I'm getting scammed somehow

>>16066355
fake and gay

>>16066125
sea level hasn't changed by a single millimeter in the past 50 years

>>16068637

>>16069978
global warming hysterics can't explain this phenomenon

>>16054968
>how do you justify all the wrong predications over the past few decades?
2 more weeks patriots

>>16069978
>>16071112
Post-glacial isostatic rebound. Infact, that's where it was first investigated and proven.

>>16072224
source?
how does that explain sea level falling in northern california?