/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

>>6833943
quick and painless. thread over, don't reply to the obvious troll answers he's going to give to this video

>>6833943

>go to his channel
>one of his beginner videos is the falsifiability test from Demon Haunted World

m8 b cool

Guess it's easy to disprove one self.
For one, here's quite a lot of current models compared to observed temps.

Here are more datasets showing the current lack of warming since 17 years, not predicted by the models.

>>6833978
>>6833982

>>6833939
that pic is horrible. the people who made it a re so dumb they couldnt even write co2 correctly

>>6834008
I agree, their dump.

Also, I don't understand the wording.

You're a denier if you believe these things that go with the belief of man made climate change?

>>6834008
Its a special molecule of carbon monoxide with square oxygen atoms

>taking your graphs from 1975

haha good one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A

>replying to this thread at all after the first reply

>>6834008
>>6034015
lol, thats a real embarrassing mistake, yeah what kind of molecule could that be? :)
here's a fixed one!

>>6834036
bad typo day, even my quotes are messed up..

>>6834016
I've not heard any one disputing the rise in CO2, only the actual measurable effects it's going to have and how close it is to its saturation level

CO2 concentrations on Venus are at the saturation value. But then again, CO2 makes up 96% of Venus's atmosphere. CO2 makes up 0.039% of Earth's atmosphere. How could anyone in their right mind believe that CO2 concentrations on Earth are near saturation value?

The planet is not warming at the rate of the prediction of the models. The observed data is conflicting with the models, it's time for new models and more proxy/satellite data.

>>6834041
>bad typo day,
are you seriously this much of a faggot?

>>6833939
I'm not denying the climate. So no.

Educate yourself.

>>6833982
The heat has gone into the bottom of the Atlantic, thanks to a 30 year cycle that is driven by the salinity changes. Despite being in a cooling phase of the cycle, 2014 has been one of the warmest years in recorded history.
Shit will really hit the fan when the cycle will move into a heating phase, bringing heat from the bottom of the ocean into the atmosphere. This will happen in the 2030s.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

>>6834557
Not that guy

But I am curious, if the missing heat went into the oceans wouldn't that same mechanism be responsible for the warming period that started the whole craze?

"They found the vast area deeper than 1,000 feet (305 meters) warmed by about 18 to 19 percent more during the hiatus periods than at other times."

Let's hope they are right, we might well need that heat once the iceman cometh (solar cycle 25 will be crucial). But unfortunately:

NASA study shows global warming heat is not hiding in the ocean ...

(because that would invalidate all current IPCC model predictions)

>>6834557

Once they started a rigorous estimate of ocean heat content, it flat-lined. No heating for a decade!

>>6833939
>le funny "science is le fact" meme

>>6834750

There's been no heating down to 2,300 feet (700 meters) for the past decade.
>>6835047

Antarctica can't fucking melt goddammit
It's not a block of ice

>>6835047

Update your data (and repay your debts)

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

just a Librul hoax used by them "scientists" to fund their lavish lifestyles with million-dollar gubmint grants

>>6835087
wow 50 years sample in millions of year

>>6835155
It was ok for you in your own graph

>>6835155
>>6835194
ANALLY OBLITERATED

>>6833939
>Here's the bullshit 97% study.

>>6835087

This is the old-fashioned, less accurate analysis. NASA does it better:


October 6, 2014
RELEASE 14-272
NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade. W. Llovel,J. K. Willis, F. W. Landerer & I. Fukumori Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2387

>>6833982
>being so ignorant of chemistry that you believe energy can only be stored as heat

>>6835137

Certainly nothing medieval about Climate Change thinking.

>>6835047
>energy must be stored as heat

>>6835825
>Global Warming
>Climate Change

>>6835087

>http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

>Data distribution figures for temperature and salinity observations, temperature and salinity anomaly fields for depths 0-2000m, heat content and steric sea level (thermosteric, halosteric, total). Temperature anomalies and heat content fields are detailed in World Ocean Heat Content and Thermosteric Sea Level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010, pdf (8.1 MB). The same calculations have been extended to keep the fields current and include fields of salinity anomalies, and steric sea level components. Explanation of differences in heat content between published work and online values is outlined in the notes (pdf, 4.2 MB).

>>6835816

>http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

>Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

It's strange how when you measure two different things, you get two different measurements.

i dunno if i understood that right. Does it want to say that Climate is really random? you're a denier of the fact that climate is random when you think that climate can be predicted etc. the way like it is done in the statements below?
im confused

>>683393
>implying Clive Palmers scientific reseach and modeling climate chance is more rigorous than tens of thousands of the top environmental scientists work for the past decades who actually know how to model situations, use mathematics, logic and science.

Is Climate Change a hoax?

No.

Has it been politicized to hell and back by both sides?

Absolutely.

.>>6836841

You left this part of the article out:

The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

>http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/

>>6837405
You left this part of the article out:
>Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
>Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

>>6837427

Does not cancel
>>6837405

Where is the missing heat?

>>6837435
It literally says that it cancels it.

>>6837443

NO IT DOESN"T!
It said the upper ocean is warming, that statement doesn't cancel:
>The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Its not warming enough. To explain the stalled air temperatures.

>>6837453
Yea and those findings don't throw suspicion on climate change itself.
Do you have problems with your reading comprehension or what?

>>6837469

Don't put words in my mouth! I didn't say that.s

Pretending that missing heat is not missing is not going to make that problem go away. NASA admits it, you should too.

>>6837480
What problem? The findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. Literally says that.
Jesus you have some issues dude

>>6837499

Which part of:
>The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Don't you understand?
So you are denying that there is missing heat? You are disagreeing with NASA?
Did you find the missing heat? Where was it hiding?

>>6837511
Which part of:
>these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
Are you saying that these findings throw suspicion to climate change?
If not what the fuck are you posting about?
You disagree with NASA?

>>6837521

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
Your strawman arguments are pathetic.

That fact that NASA acknowledged that there is missing heat, while you won't even mention it makes you the quintessential Denier.

>>6837547
It's not a strawman
It literally says that the findings about the deep sea warming trends don't throw suspicion to climate change.
Sure there is "missing heat" that doesn't make climate change any less true even if you use a lot of caps lock.

>>6833939
> rapid growth of carbon squared

>>6837551

YES IT IS A STRAWMAN.
I never said that statement was wrong. You pretend I did. That is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.

Missing heat means that there is a flaw in the theory. Nothing in that article said that there wasn't a flaw.

Your religious-like zeal reminds me of a fundamentalist. Certainly not a scientist.
Unlike you, a scientist acknowledges when data does not fully correspond to a theory.

You're refusal to even acknowledge the missing heat is like a fundamentalist's refusal to acknowledge that there are inconsistencies in the Bible.
>>6835821

>>6837569
I never said that there wasn't any missing heat either you just assumed I did.
>Missing heat means that there is a flaw in the theory
Nasa doesn't think so:
>these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
Just because you have a religion that claims otherwise doesn't make it right against Nasa's better judgement.

>>6837577
>I never said that there wasn't any missing heat either you just assumed I did.

Your refused to acknowledge it. Which means you refuse to acknowledge an inconsistency between data and theory.

>Just because you have a religion that claims otherwise...

Wow! How clever and original. Making a religious accusation. Where did you get that idea? You remind me of my 6 year old brother whose counter-"argument" was always "I know you are, but what am I."

YES or NO question. Do you acknowledge that there is missing heat?

>>6837601
I just copy pasted your own post m8
>Your refused to acknowledge it.
And you refuse to acknowledge that these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

>>6834526
Anon, look at yourself here. How nice is it for you to talk to somebody the way you just did? Not very.

>>6833939

The scientific consensus is that climate change is a real, anthroprogenically driven phenomenon. However, my professor taught me that scientific consensus does not equate to scientific fact.

>>6837605
Why are you arguing with a child?

>>6838775
Scientific consensus is consensus about what is factual. Science determines what is scientific fact, consensus clarifies what science has determined.

>>6838836
truths stay as such as long as they fit the accepted paradigm in place

thanks based Thomas Khun

>>6838836
There was once a scientific consensuses concerning Newton's laws of gravitation. And really, who had the right to deny it at the time? That was the best of their understanding, and it damn well explained most of things of their time. However, there were a few observed phenomena that his laws couldn't account for. The most famous one being Mercury's peculiar orbit, which was later explained by a better theory, Einstein's law of General relativity.

I've been told there is a consensus concerning the cause of climate change, but that is our current consensus with our current understanding of nature. Things might change guy, which provide an even better understanding of climate change, and maybe even be something completely different than what we think now. It could be something else other than human activity, like some cycle of concerning the largest supported biomass, Earth can sustain; currently unexplained ways that the ocean traps heat, and releases it over time; the Jews. Really, we cannot say for sure until the future unfolds.

>>6838911
>i see what you did there
>largest supported biomass Earth can sustain
>the jews
>mfw

>>6838853
>accepted paradigm
PSY101 detected

>>6838944
>implying you have to take psy to use the phrase "accepted paradigm"

>>6838944
>Thomas Khun, a physicist writing about paradigms in science using mostly examples on hard sciences like physics, math and chemistry
>his work is read in history/philosophy of science classes everywhere

>PSY101
>mfw

>>6838944
Guy with google detected

>>6837089
climate has been changing for centuries, dumbshit

>>6837605

I acknowledge that NASA JPL Scientist Josh Willis said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. I also acknowledge that NASA gets very large amounts of money for Climate Change work and Josh Willis might lose his job if he were to question climate change.

You, on the other hand, have refused to acknowledge the missing heat which shows that your view of Climate Change has a quasi-religious fanaticism. It is certainly not scientific, as even NASA acknowledges that there is missing heat yet you still can't acknowledge it. That is pretty much the definition of dogma.

>>6838911
Things might change (but they probably won't)

The consensus might be wrong (but it probably isn't)

Rainbow farting unicorns might be the cause of climate change, that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion though.

>>6839238
Isn't it past your bedtime kid?

>>6839362

>The consensus might be wrong (but it probably isn't)
You mean the non-consensus.

>>6839238
>I also acknowledge that NASA gets very large amounts of money for Climate Change work and Josh Willis might lose his job if he were to question climate change.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628

>>6839238
I dont know about warming, but humans do have a pronounced effect on the environment. Look at Beijing, covered in unbreathable smog most days. But muh climate change isnt real lets all forget about it.

Idiot.

>>6838986
[citation needed]

>>6839787

>Coal dust and carbon monoxide = CO2
Idiot.

>>6834054
>How could anyone in their right mind believe that CO2 concentrations on Earth are near saturation value
Earth is different from Venus in saturation lmits?
I don't think that's too far fetched.

>>6833939
Another climate change bait thread!

Another one with the same recurring posters!

When will people realise they've been duped?!

>>6843229
That's retarded, but yes, I could imagine sane people believing this.

Thanks for answering my question

>>6843313
nobody gives a shit what the op thinks, this thread is simply a chance to plug your favorite links and opinions