/sci/ - Science & Math

Warming on mars is driven by dust.

EXPLAIN WHY VENUS IS SO HOT WITHOUT GREEN HOUSE GAS THEORY YOU GENIUS

It 'hints', it's not a definitive conclusion... -.-

>according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Sure does sound like scientific consensus to me

>>1890109
Well, venus is far closer to the sun than earth. The close you are to the sun, the hotter it gets. If you didn't even know that, you should try hang out at the 2nd grade science board.

But even as a stupid rebuttle as that was, it's still totally besides the point.... mars and earth are showing a similar fluctuation in global temperatures.

>>1890139
man made global warming is a theory... you sound like an idiot by implying consensus = reality.

>A does C
>B does C
>Therefore, A = B

>>1890147
Except Mercury is even closer to the sun and its average temperature is nowhere near that of Venus you fucking idiot.
>mars and earth are showing a similar fluctuation in global temperatures
No, they don't. The PATTERN of warming is not similar at all.

>>1890160
>evolution is a theory... you sound like an idiot by implying consensus = reality.

i reckon Milankovitch had the right idea

>>1890160
>implying 97+ percent of scientists agreeing is meaningless.
Also,
>a theory
You have no idea what a scientific theory constitutes. The fact that it's a theory, a largely unrefuted one accepted by the scientific community, means it's backed up by vast amounts of evidence. It's not a fucking hypothesis.

The debate is over OP. OVER DO YOU HEAR ME?

I got my cronies just waiting, just fucking amped to get in on the carbon credit brokerage market. Did you hear how mothERfuckers are livin' LARGE on the EU carbon credits? Can you say "cha-ching"?

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND IF YOU INTERFERE WITH THIS GRAVY TRAIN... SO HELP ME I'LL...

some government fag friend of mine also likes the virtually unlimited power and soviet-style industrial policy shit, but like I care baby, CASH

>>1890176
>>1890160
He's right, though, consensus proves nothing.
The consensus is merely a majority of scientists (not even close to all, in most cases) agreeing on a theory that has yet to be definitively proved.
Keep in mind, the scientific consensus used to be that the universe was static, even Einstein insisted on this.

Then all of a sudden: Red-shift up in this bitch and scientific consensus is nowhere to be found.

>>1890182
>Milankovitch Cycles
According to which, the earth should be cooling

>>1890182
>implying solar cycles are not included as covariates in regression analyses.

>>1890195
>a theory that has yet to be definitively proved.
You have no understanding about how science works whatsoever
Your post is bad, and you should feel bad

>>1890193
Well, no, again you're wrong. A theory begins unproved and can become proved. It never STOPS being a theory, but simply because it is a theory doesn't mean anything.

It could be proved.
It could be unproved.
It could be true, based on data and proper interpretation, or it could be so much bullshit.

Saying it is a theory doesn't mean anything, one way or the other.

>>1890171
LOL im the idiot?

I said mars and earth are going through a similar temperature fluxiation.

Your rebuttal is that it's hot on venus

No matter what you say, I will always view you as an idiot. You disputed nothing and looked like a fool in the process.

>>1890147
I wonder if newfag

>>1890195
>definitively proved
It's impossible to PROVE a theory you dumb shit. Science works by falsification, not confirmation. The longer a theory remains unfalsified the more credible it is. Just like evolution.

>>1890210
>>1890210
>You have no understanding about how science works whatsoever
Actually I know exactly how science works, considering my work in nuclear physics.
Something that begins as a theory is forever a theory, regardless of evidence.

>>1890207
oh dear god you're so told you don't even know you're told

>>1890216
The definition of "prove", in this instance, means to "test the veracity of". It does not necessarily mean to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that something is true.

L2English, boyo

>>1890218
>considering my work in nuclear physics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHUUUuuuuUHAHAHAHAHAHA

you can't prove a theory you idiot.

>>1890218
>my work in nuclear physics
name the subatomic particle with a charmness of +3

>>1890228
>It does not necessarily mean to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that something is true.
>definitively prove
>definitively

>>1890210
Please ignore tripfags. Thank you for your cooperation.

>>1890230
>you can't prove a theory you idiot.
You must be trolling, I can't imagine anyone with an actual science background would be unaware of the various definitions of the word "prove".

ITT: Global warming denialists

Not surprising, considering the number of religious trolls /sci/ gets every day.

When 97-98% of actual working climatologists thinks global warming is anthropogenic, one might think you should stop and listen to them.

>>1890230
>>1890236
>prove Verb /pro͞ov/ listen
>-subject to a testing process
>-test the accuracy of

Really, you're just playing semantics at this point, so I'm almost certain you're a troll.

Warming and cooling cycles are entirely natural.
What isn't natural is how we're exacerbating our warming cycle by artificially trapping extra heat.

>>1890147
>venus is far closer to the sun than earth. The close you are to the sun, the hotter it gets

By that token Mercury should be the hottest planet, but it isn't. Venus is.

>>1890207
>mars and earth are going through a similar temperature fluxiation

Every planet fluctuates, but AFAIK the fluctuations between Earth and Mars are not similar. Go ahead and show us this data that has convinced you to make this claim. It's necessary to back it up.

>>1890209
>A theory begins unproved and can become proved

That's not exactly how it works. Also a scientific theory has very little in common with the colloquial term "theory" that the layman equates with guessing. That would actually be a conjecture, but that is too complex a word to use in the vernacular.

>>1890254
It has nothing to do with semantics you faggot. It has everything to do with methodology and the foundations of science. Also, you're debating with multiple people.

Even if global warming turns out to be natural, I still think it´s a good thing we stop releasing shit into the ecosystem that could potentially fuck it up.

>>1890218

Exactly. Like gravity.

We have the Theory of Gravitation.

Does that make the existence of the phenomenon of gravity "just a theory and open to debate?"

>>1890243
I can almost taste the googling at this point

>>1890267
>What isn't natural is how we're exacerbating our warming cycle by artificially trapping extra heat.

Assuming this is a warming cycle anyway.

Because if this is actually supposed to be a cooling cycle (eg: as per the Milankovitch cycle) and we're completely counteracting it, we're in deep shit when the warming cycle hits.

>>1890271
The Graviton is still a hypothesis. Just saying.

>>1890271
>Does that make the existence of the phenomenon of gravity "just a theory and open to debate?"

I never said that it did. Some other poster that you're arguing with stated that. My post was simply stating that consensus does not mean a topic is not open to debate, it had nothing to do with the word theory.
>>1890268
No, you are just playing semantics, you know precisely what I was saying and you're merely playing a "gotcha" game that 'proves' nothing.

>>1890299
He's a troll regardless of his answer.

>>1890280
i asked something that is hilariously easy for an actual physicist, but takes more than 5 minutes to get through wikipedia
so, if he doesn't answer until them, he's a troll

the earth IS cooling

>>1890299
>>1890299
>hilariously easy for an actual physicis
I'm not a physicist, and I can't answer your question

>>1890304
>>1890304
I'm a troll because your word is law?
You just spent 15 minutes arguing the definition of the word "prove"
And you weren't even right.
If anyone's trolling, it's obviously you.

>>1890306
>I'm not a physicist
Is your "work in nuclear physics" reading the wikipedia article for the standard model?

>>1890315
No, it's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_School

>>1890303
>No, you are just playing semantics, you know precisely what I was saying and you're merely playing a "gotcha" game that 'proves' nothing.
I'm not playing semantics. You said "definitively proved" and that is simply impossible. The fact that you meant something else just means you phrased it wrongly. It doesn't change the fact that what you said is fucking retarded and you should accept that. Man the fuck up and just admit you were wrong about it and this discussion is over. Don't be a faggot and say I'm resorting to semantics when you are the one who made the mistake.

>>1890329
>just means you phrased it wrongly.
So I improperly phrased it, obviously, that doesn't negate my point.

You're playing with logical fallacies in an attempt to argue a point that I was not even attempting to make.

>>1890305
wait until the 2010 numbers get integrated. This was a la niña year and yet it's the warmest on record.

>>1890195
>implying that scientific theories can be definitively proved.

ARE YOU DUMB? YOU MUST BE DUMB.

>>1890322
that's not "work in nuclear physics", it's not even science, it's getting told how to operate a complicated machine
Like a crane, or a monster truck, only with radioactivity

>>1890313
>You just spent 15 minutes arguing the definition of the word "prove"
The crucial part was "definitively" you faggot. That implies exemption from falsification.

>>1890333
see: >>1890344

>>1890344
No, the important word is "consensus" which is the only point I was attempting to make.

You distracted from the actual statement with a strawman that you've been hacking to death for 15 minutes, without addressing the original point in the least.

>>1890346
>that's not "work in nuclear physics"
Yes, it is. The field of study included nuclear physics, as did the job.

>>1890351
>the words i said are strawmen
what the fuck?

>>1890351
Fucking forget it faggot. The point is that a theory is never definitively proven and I think you know that but just won't fucking admit you made a stupid comment because you're stubborn and a kid. I'm out of this thread.

>>1890357
Again, all you're doing is distracting from the actual argument with a strawmen. Even the post you just made is a strawman.

>>Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

>>"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

OP, your guy believes in global cooling. He's right that solar irradiance started to decline the 90s but the temperature continues to rise, which is precisely how we know industrial pollution is a contributing factor.

>>1890354
obviously, the guy who operates the monster truck will understand the basic workings of an engine, that doesn't make him a car mechanic
neither did any of the things you do make you a scientist, or give you any authority to comment on the workings and methods of science

>>1890363
>neither did any of the things you do make you a scientist

I never claimed they did. But it did give me an understanding of scientific methodology, which you are losing your mind over due to a single word without, yet, addressing the minor point, which was not even that argumentative to begin with.

The Scientific Method:

1. Observe phenomena.
2. Form a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Test the hypothesis through experiment.
4. If hypothesis fails, return to step 2.
5. Otherwise, publish results.
6. Independent re-testing.
7. If the hypothesis fails, return to step 2.
8. Otherwise, you now have an accepted theory.
9. Wait for new data or testing methods to discredit your theory.
10. Return to step 2.

This sounds like a giant waste of time, but while a theory holds it is the most accurate explanation of a phenomena available and allows us to make the most accurate predictions currently possible.

The scientific method operates only by falsification and cannot actually prove anything. It is irrelevant that a dictionary has decided to define the word proof in a manner that sounds to the layman like it could apply. It does not.

>>1890096
Mars's atmosphere is predominantly carbon dioxide. If anything, we should be concerned that our planet is showing signs of following Mars's response to the sun's natural cycles. If the surface of Mars seems so appealing, then by all means carry on with the systematic destruction of our planet's thermoregulatory abilities. Otherwise just shut the fuck up, failtroll

Judging by your observation its obvious that we're polluting Mars idiot

>>1890375

Why would a nuclear technician have to know anything about the scientific method? Anyway, I'm fairly sure you're wrong about theories being proven. Are you sure you're not talking about mathematics?

I say we just go out there and rescue some fucking icebears.

AGW deniers are anti-science in general. Usually also creationists, they simply don't accept any scientific findings that don't fit into their preferred narrative.

They cannot be reasoned with, no compromise will satisfy them and they represent an unsurmountable obstacle to the propagation of technologies vital not only for environmental reasons but also for future economic reasons, such as electric cars (competitiveness of US auto industry) solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear (energy independence) and so on. They are literally opposed to the future. Completely anti-progress, and they cannot be budged from this position.

For this reason they should be exterminated. Their staunch opposition to necessary technological progress makes them an impedence to American prosperity. As they are stubborn and stupid, unwilling to budge, they must be rounded up in camps and killed. This is the only way that we as a nation and as a species will be able to move forward, when the worst among us have been removed.

>>1890096

>this theory

a geuss

>>1890462
Polar bears can swim dozens of miles. The pictures you've seen of them on iceflows are not "stranded" bears. The famous one with the mother and cub was of a mother and cub playing on the ice, they then hopped off and swam back to the larger mass.

Pictures like that are, more or less, propaganda and do not help the debate in the least because when they are shown to be so much smoke and mirrors people say "SEE?! IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!"

Remember that National Geographic is owned by the same people that run Fox News.

Now you know.

>>1890484

Those pictures are a visual representation of the Polar Bears shrinking habitat. They are not meant to be taken literally.

Learn about metaphors already. I'm starting to get sick of your dumbass posts.

>>1890471
>simply don't accept any scientific findings that don't fit into their preferred narrative.
>Ignores this massive piece of evidence.

OK.

You're also a eugenicist, so I'm going to assume you're 13.

>>1890520
National Geographic is owned by the National Geographic Society, dumbass.

>>1890548
Very wrong. They were taken literally, and used throughout the news literally. They didn't "represent" anything, the woman who took them didn't intend them to "represent" anything, as she has stated before, she just thought it was an interesting picture to take and years later it was bandied about as "the polar bears are trapped!"

It was literally used as propaganda.

>>1890615

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

okay

>>1890607

I'm 27, and I haven't ignored it. I actually read the entire article, something the OP didn't do, and found information which invalidates his interpretation:


"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

This guy's predicting global cooling. There were fringe scientists predicting that decades ago, although even back then the majority predicted warming.

He's correct that irradiance began a decline in the 90s. However the warming trend has accelerated in spite of this. That's precisely how we know industrial pollution is a significant contributing factor.

By the way, you accept eugenics too. You just know it better as selective breeding of crops and of livestock. Eugenics was the application of that principle to humans. The principle is sound, it's just unpopular on account of human rights abuses that were committed in it's name.

...And anyway, eugenics isn't really relevant in any way to what I said. Unless you think regressive attitudes are hereditary.

>>1890668
The principle is unpopular because applying it to humans is evil and puts a level of power in the hands of those who decide by what criteria someone lives or dies that is wholly unacceptable.

Unless you just hate all Enlightenment values, then there is no application with humans that is not evil.

>>1890691

>>The principle is unpopular because applying it to humans is evil and puts a level of power in the hands of those who decide by what criteria someone lives or dies that is wholly unacceptable.

I'm not proposing applying it to humans. I'm proposing we apply it to science deniers. The delineation between person and nonperson should, in my view, be drawn somewhere within the species boundary rather than between humans and our nearest ape relatives.

>>Unless you just hate all Enlightenment values, then there is no application with humans that is not evil.

I love enlightenment values. That's why I want to prevent their destruction by regressives. Why don't you?

>>1890708
>I'm proposing we apply it to science deniers
And so, you have perfectly demonstrated why it is evil.
What science do you deem we kill people for denying? What if someone denies dark energy, then what? Kill them?

In the early 1900's you'd have been killing people for denying a static universe.

You're just proposing fascism against people you dislike. It's that simple.

IF you don't believe in freedom of speech, thought, and expression (even of ideas you dislike) then you do not, in fact, believe in Enlightenment values.

>>1890736

>>And so, you have perfectly demonstrated why it is evil.

Are you insane? How can the destruction of evil people be an evil act?

>>What science do you deem we kill people for denying? What if someone denies dark energy, then what? Kill them?

No. However if they take concerted political action which inhibits research in that area, yes. The criteria involves action, not thought.

>>In the early 1900's you'd have been killing people for denying a static universe.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

>>You're just proposing fascism against people you dislike. It's that simple.

Yes, unapologetically. But it's not simply because I dislike them. It's because of the reason why I dislike them.

>>IF you don't believe in freedom of speech, thought, and expression (even of ideas you dislike) then you do not, in fact, believe in Enlightenment values.

I already corrected this once, please go back and read my prior post. You seem to be very confused, as you are conflating the defense of enlightenment values with a lack of appreciation for enlightenment values. It's a nonsequitor.

>>1890754
>Okay, I'm fine with that.

Lawlwut
So you'd have killed Edwin Hubble?
You do realize the universe is not static, right?

I think your trolling is showing

>>1890779

Edwin Hubble was a scientist. I thought it was implicit that they would be exempt.

It isn't brilliant dissenters within the scientific community that are the problem. It's masses of uneducated, backwards primitives who vote that are the problem. I'm not trying to quash deviation from the status quo, within science. I'm trying to prevent the barbarians at the gates from dooming us all.

>>1890800
>I'm not trying to quash deviation from the status quo, within science
Yes you are. And that's exactly what your tyrannical, evil little shithill of an empire would devolve into.
You're literally advocating killing everyone who isn't a scientist.

You're evil, not to mention an overly egotistical narcissist.

People have the right to reject your ideas, theories, and hypotheses for whatever reason they choose.

>>1890820
I reject all of einstein's theories because they make me feel my intelligence is insignificant.

>>1890820

>>Yes you are. And that's exactly what your tyrannical, evil little shithill of an empire would devolve into.

No, I'm not. If you insist upon putting words in my mouth and assigning a position to me which I do not hold, reasoning with you will be impossible.

>>You're literally advocating killing everyone who isn't a scientist.

This is false, nowhere did I suggest this.

>>You're evil, not to mention an overly egotistical narcissist.

And you're deeply dishonest about what I actually believe and advocate.

>>People have the right to reject your ideas, theories, and hypotheses for whatever reason they choose.

Absolutely, of course they do. But the minute they act on it in such a way as to obstruct necessary technological progress in reaction to phenomena near-universally accepted by scientists worldwide as a pressing global concern, they become enemies of humanity.

>>1890839
>obstruct necessary technological progress
So you'd kill people who protested the creation of the atmoic bomb?

Once again, you are an abhorrent, evil, vile, disgusting human being.

I see that it's a common theme to immediately grasp and cling to any report which puts into question anthropogenic global warming. If(when) these reports get disproven these people move into a sort of limbo. They wait for another contrary report to emerge, then again they get bolstered by the feeling that now they got those fuckers by the balls. Ad infinitum.

>>1890872

>>So you'd kill people who protested the creation of the atmoic bomb?

Yes, absolutely. The atomic bomb is what makes pulsed nuclear propulsion possible. It's likely the only way we'll be able to build a solar system spanning empire.

>>Once again, you are an abhorrent, evil, vile, disgusting human being.

And from my perspective, you are. You stand for the gradual downfall of civilization, the descent from our former greatness into a morass of ignorance and barbarism. You would refuse to defend yourself even as a caveman bashed your head in, that's the metaphorical equivalent of what you're advocating now. That makes you the quintissential antihuman. Your interests are contrary to the continued wellbeing of our species.

Hostis Humani Generis

Civilization is built upon tolerance.
It is however also built upon an absolute intolerance for this one thing. To tolerate this is to bring about our own destruction.

>>1890305

>>1890914

Precisely. I was searching for the term when I saw your post.

>>1890668
>claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

does not lead to

>dismissal of the greenhouse effect

>>1891052

Yes, it does. Dismissal does not have to be absolute. He is downplaying, to the point of absurdity, it's role in the observed warming.

>>1891067
The article is trying to make it look like he is saying the greenhouse effect is not real, to discredit him in the minds of simpletons, when its likely he is just, correctly, pointing out that co2 (total co2 released by the entire fucking planet) is only 10-20% of the total effect.

>>1891080

That's now how it came across to me at all. Are you politically conservative, by chance?

>>1891112
I would call myself a moderate as far as my actual views, but i think the entire political scene is just a show put on to distract the populace. I do think the left tends use the 'everyone agrees lol ur dumb' argument more often than the right, as I have seen things said by various people on the right entirely twisted around and misconstrued countless times.

>>1891150

Nonetheless, it is factually true that the majority of climatologists agree on AGW. That's the case regardless of politics.

>>1891150

Referred to "The Left". Unless by some miracle he's a true centrist/anarchist/whatever, he's a Conservative.

And why does this have bearing on the current thread? Because what Conservatives are Conserving is religion, growth oriented capitalism and whatever science and technology existed in the 1950's. So long as it agrees with the bible of course.

Inb4 Leftard. I don't like them either. Socialism is seriously lacking in it's theoretical foundations and a complete misunderstanding of human biology, as would be expected by an Ideology that grew up in the 19th century.

And please, no more talk of "rights". They're an abstraction. A legal fiction we invented because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I for one would like to see "privileges" become the focus. Reward those who contribute and do well in the world, deny those same privileges to the unworthy. Let citizenship be something you earn etc.

Why? So lazy, inbred, unintelligent morons are no longer put on the same level as hardworking, educated and intelligent people. The, issues like this could be decided by experts alone. Scientists could decide on science issues, military leadership on theirs etc.

What a shocking idea! Leave the decision making to those who actually know what they're talking about!!

OP SEE THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM