/sci/ - Science & Math

If the Telegraph says it's being manipulated, then it probably isn't.

>>7056050
If Al Gore says the Earth is getting hotter then it probably isn't.

>>7056062
A right-wing (subhuman) journalist (ignorant) accusing scientists of lying is a very grave matter and should be legally persecuted.

So, are we warming or cooling? I live in northern US and it's been getting cooler every winter.

>>7056068
he's reporting on the research others have done.

seeing as the UN's model forgot to account for water absorbing heat, it is pretty safe to say no one really knows with any certainty what is going on. Geologists say the planet was much warmer than it is currently. 40 years ago they thought we were headed into another ice age. to make a conclusion we need a hell of a lot more data.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
tl;dr climate measurement datasets are really noisy, all those adjustments are necessary to get any kind of reasonable conclusion out of the data

>>7056076
who cares, it's not like that will change anything. will china, the usa and europe quit all fossil fuels if it's ever 100% established it's in fact getting warmer?

>>7056076
Warming.

>I
Anecdotes be gone!

>>7056068
Both; it's climate change.
Winters and summers are getting more extreme.

If we weren't fucked we will be a lot faster
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8401/20140805/fd-methane-plumes-seep-frozen-ocean-floors.htm

>>7056086
implying it isn't true that winters have been colder...

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/nasa-admits-that-winters-are-going-to-get-colder-much-colder_112014

> three weather stations in Paraguay
STOP. THE. GODDAMN. PRESSES.
Seriously, though, i have no goddamn clue why the sceptics ride around on weather stations so much, which are inaccurate as fuck, when we have dozens of fucking satellites orbiting earth that are perfectly capable of monitoring all temperatures everywhere and show the warming trend clearly.

>>7056048
Get REKT OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA

>>7056080
>Geologists say the planet was much warmer than it is currently

That's true. Just because there were tropical regions at the poles during the Jurassic period doesn't necessarily mean we want to make the world like that again.

>>7056484
nah, even more recently than that. I tend to avoid the whole global warming thing, modern global warming isn't falsifiable, so its no longer science. we should be focused on legitimate environmental problems, like the garbage patches in the oceans, I think there is a little over a dozen now. Its something that is clearly a problem to everyone and not some esoteric boogeyman like global warming is.

>>7056460
>satellites .. show the warming trend clearly
RSS data are publicly accessible.
Pic shows result from 2015-02-08 22:46 UTC

>>7056892
well I'm convinced.

Republicans have to debunk global warming. Al Gore said it's true, and democrats are satan's pawns trying to corrupt christians, take american jobs to give to mexicans, and institute a progressive tax.

I get less snow every year so it's definitely happening.

>>7056892
>>7056958
And we widen to reveal...

>>7056048
>are temperature data being manipulated on purpose?
How else could it be man-made global warming?

>>7057013
No, they're being manipulated accidentally!

Fucking retards.

>>7056998
I would be really useful to know if this was mean temp, the mode, or whatever metric they're basing this on. Is that a variance of 1 degree C? if so that is pretty much nothing.

>>7057025
>I would be really useful to know if this was mean temp, the mode, or whatever metric they're basing this on.
usually a linear regression

>Meteorologist: 'In the business world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data'...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01/10/meteorologist-anthony-watts-on-adjusted-us-temperature-data-in-the-business-and-trading-world-people-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/

Which of these curve fitting methods do climate "scientists" use?

It's all fucking bullshit designed to suck money out of taxpayers and put more guilt on people.

>>7056998
Wow, you drew an upward diagonal line through temperature data even though the trend is zero to negative starting at 1998. Who is that supposed to convince?

A little honesty would use a higher-order fit to see how the trend changes over time.

>>7057044
Statistically speaking, satellite data shows that there has been no global warming for 16 years (UAH data) or 26 years (RSS data).

McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

There is more and more divergence between the reasonably objective satellite data and the surface temperature data which has enormous areas (much of the oceans) without thermometers and is subject to the Urban Heat Island effect.

>>7057283
I didn't draw anything retard, the site made the trend line. A little honesty would not cut off the graph at an arbitrary point to get the trend you want.

>>7057051
See >>7056469

>>7056081
>tl;dr climate measurement datasets are really noisy, all those adjustments are necessary to get any kind of reasonable conclusion out of the data
Sure, but then the conclusion depends on the adjustments you use, and the adjustments are based on assumptions, so the conclusion ends up being based on assumptions, not data.

Better science would admit lower confidence.

>>7057304
Well lets look at a much larger picture to get better context. Looks like nothing significant is going on.

>>7057335
Most proxy studies disagree

>>7057323
>>Better science would admit lower confidence.
that's exactly why climate scientists test their models with a broad range of parameters

>>7057399
This study has been debunked. They take low variance, relatively low correlation (even though they're global "proxies") data and then sew on instrumental data (thermometers etc.) at the end. This is statistical hogwash, because you're mixing two very different resolutions of data; about 50 years vs. 1 year (the proxies are drawn sharper than their actual resolution). If you took that black line at the end and put it through a 50 year rolling average it would be almost flat.

What is worse, really bad, is the tree proxies don't work. You've heard the term "hide the decline?" That was tree proxies that shot up until about 1940, then turned downward. So Michael Mann etc. would "hide the decline" by cutting that proxy data off and covering it beneath instrumental data. Look carefully at this graph. Notice how the proxies turn downward? Meaning either the proxies are not temperature proxies or there is something wrong with the instrumental data. This completely destroys the legitimacy of the graph and illustrate how dishonest some climate "scientists" are.

If The Proxies Were Good, They Wouldn't Need To Be Replaced By Instrumental Data At the End.

Pic related. A close up of this graph -- or a similar one, showing the hiding of the decline.

>>7057456
Then why do their models fail so miserably?

>>7057283

>A little honesty would use a higher-order fit to see how the trend changes over time

lol you've clearly never done data analysis. adding more terms to a regression does not make the regression better

>>7057583
What are you talking about? The black is the instrumental record and it's not "sewn on" to anything. It's simply included in the graph and it shows good agreement with the proxies.

Next time, try not copying and pasting incoherent babble from some quack site.

As to tree rings not being inaccurate, the latest non-tree reconstruction from Ljungqvist agrees with these proxies and not Loehle. Comically, Loehle immediately went to WUWT to proclaim that he was "vindicated" by this. To show this he shifted Ljungqvist graph up so that it's mean coincided with Loehle's mean. Who's creating false warming now?

>>7057593
They don't, you just posted a graph that cherrypicks by implying that the mid-troposphere is representative of a model's predictive power, instead of looking at the whole model. This is an easy target because observations of the troposphere are more variable and because its proximity to the stratosphere creates a cooling bias. But thanks for once again showing your only purpose here is to post graphs that have been debunked countless times.

>>7057603
You know, the kidz over at Simpleton Science are not to be trusted. Look at this, a blow up of that graph. The red proxy turns downward. The reddish brown proxy turns downward, the light blue proxy isn't remotely at the same place as the instrumental data (black line). And the dark blue proxy has turned downward too!

They do not remotely agree with the instrumental data.

>>7057603
>Ljungqvist
Debunked, e.g., http://climateaudit.org/2013/12/14/varved-inconsistency/
>nb4 Evil Denier!!!
yeah, I know, varves are just so scientifically consistent and rigorous.

>Next time, try not copying and pasting incoherent babble from some quack site.
Does that make you feel better, trying to belittle me? Assuming I did a copypasta?
I'm sorry that I don't adhere to your unfalsifiable ideology.

>>7057671
Oh gosh, I'm sorry. I forgot about the complex statistical analysis called "zooming in"! There is much higher variance between the proxies than between the proxies and the instrumental, so what exactly is your point? That if you zoom in enough on two sets of data from different sources and methods you will see a difference? Wow, you're a regular fucking Einstein aren't you?

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact. Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary.

>>7057635
Ah yes!, Rewriting history. You should get together with the UN IPCC for the George Orwell prize. Problem is, we've got a copy of what the AR4 report said. Yeah the predictions that were going to go into the AR5 report but were yanked out at the last moment because they were so embarrassingly wrong.

But we're supposed to pretend that the UN IPCC was saying this all along, right?
Pic related, AR4 predictions updated and ready for AR5. Yanked out at the last moment to make sure that the public doesn't see how bad climate "science" has become.

Anything for the faith.

>>7057687
Hey guess who used varved lake sediments in their proxy study???

Craig fucking Loehle! You know, the guy who made that graph you were boasting about!

Presumably, if you knew what you were talking about, and not just copying and pasting random shit that confirms your idiotic ideology, you would at least know not to post things that contradict each other! But I guess that's just too much to ask from someone as knowledgeable as you.

Fucking hilarious.

>>7057690
>you proved me wrong by showing the down-turning proxies! OMFG!
Pathetic resort to ad hominem. I guess that's all you've got.

>>7057690
>you proved me wrong by showing the down-turning proxies! OMFG!
Pathetic resort to ad hominem. I guess that's all you've got.

Yup no "hide the decline" to be seen here, move along.
Preserve your faith.

>>7057701
There's nothing to prove wrong if you don't offer a coherent argument in the first place. Zooming in and saying that there's a difference between the lines is not a coherent argument. It's just delusional babble. And yes I insulted you, who cares? Learn the difference between an ad hominem and an ad hominem fallacy.

>>7057703
The only one preserving their faith here is the guy posting debunked, contradictory, and just plain nonsensical arguments in order to confirm their delusions. I'm just posting science.

>>7057698
The predictions weren't wrong, retard, the graph was improperly baselined. Nice conspiracy theory though. I guess if you can't beat them then just post incorrect graphs.

>>7057700
Where did I say that all varves were bad? The site specifically addresses varves used by Ljungqvist.

Seriously, you're so quick to use ad hominem, you're beyond inconsistent. Honestly, shouldn't you be hanging out with the SkS Boyz?

>>7057715
The link you posted claims that "the varve thickness data in multiproxy studies is anything but “independent”."

So yes, the link you posted does say varves are bad, not just in Ljungvist, but in all multiproxy studies. Read your own fucking shit before you copy and paste.

>>7056081
Show me another science that does this. Ever read a methods section of a paper that says something like this? I can see it now...

"Our data was noisy, so we examined each point individually and applied adjustments to each, based on various factors that we thought appropriate at the time for that point, but we can't really recall. Then we threw out the original data and adjustments made (sorry!) and just kept the adjusted data. Then we ran statistical analysis that proves our result. Ever seen better p values? I think not!"

>>7057714
>The predictions weren't wrong, retard, the graph was improperly baselined.
The predictions weren't wrong we just moved the Goal Posts, er, I meant baseline.

> Climate Scientists never have failed predictions, because its unfalsifiable.
Yeah, anytime it looks like the UN IPCC fails, its just a misinterpretation by Koch brothers funded conspiracy theorists.

Wow, its fun, in a twisted sort of way, to watch an unfalsifiable ideology pretend to be science.

>Retarded conservatives and /pol/ scream that global warming isn't true
>Don't pay attention to Water acidification
And that is how you know they are wrong.

>>7057723
Right, REAL science doesn't correct anything! Correction = lying. You revealed the conspiracy! 3% more warming than the uncorrected data showed was obviously necessary to keep the conspiracy going. Don't even think about it any further.

>>7057723
Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary, in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition.

>>7057730
Real science doesn't "adjust data" without reasoned justification and a record of the adjustments made.

>>7057726
>The predictions weren't wrong we just moved the Goal Posts, er, I meant baseline.
>Errr, I don't understand these correction so I'm just going to act like they're lies because that conforms to my preconceived beliefs
Please tell us more about how the weather stations in Paraguay are so integral to the climate conspiracy.

>>7057722
Exactly where is Loehle listed in this list of publications?

Honestly, you're way to quick to resort to ad hominem.
Pic taken from article.

>>7057732
>Real science doesn't "adjust data" without reasoned justification and a record of the adjustments made.
>If I ignore the justification it doesn't exist
>If I ignore the justification it doesn't exist
>If I ignore the justification it doesn't exist
>If I ignore the justification it doesn't exist
>If I ignore the justification it doesn't exist

>>7057730
Climatology resembles a religion, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. And if it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology.

>>7057593

>>7057705
You failed. The proxies turned down, and all you have is a foul mouth for a counter-argument.

Sorry but "hide the decline" will live in infamy as the point where climate "science" revealed how fraudulent it has become.

>>7057734
He's not! That's because he's a denier and on McIntyre's side. Even though he uses the exact same method McIntyre is criticizing, he doesn't appear on the list. Isn't that odd?

>>7057737
>Climatology resembles a religion
This is exactly what creationists say about evolution. You have the intellectual ability of a creationist.

>>7057733
Again, the resort to ad hominem.

Anyone who doesn't worship at the Church of Climate Change is an Oil Company funded wack-job conspiracy theorist.

Where's my check?

>>7057742
If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

>>7057746
The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

>>7057742
The instrumental record also turns down. Are you blind or just delusional. Show me a statistical analysis that shows the proxies differ significantly from the instrumental or get out.

>>7057736

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records/faq

No record of what was and wasn't adjusted, no record of adjustments made, no record of how the adjustment was computed.

"The data may have been adjusted to take account of non-climatic influences, for example changes in observing methods, and in some cases this adjustment may not have been recorded, so it may not be possible to recreate the original data as recorded by the observer."

>>7057747
Again, no one cares that your feelings are hurt. You don't see me complaining when every post you make insults my intelligence do you? But keep calling climatology a religion, it's hilarious, you quack.

Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

>>7057752
>bla bla bla, I can't deal with scientific facts so I'm going to invoke conspiracy logic
It's getting very very old.

>>7057752
>The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

I think that's what got us into this mess in the first place.

>>7057746
Climate Change "Science" is dogmatic -- they refuse to debate it.
Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable -- no plausible observation can show its wrong.
Climate Change "Science" says skeptics are EVIL -- they're called deniers, just like Holocaust deniers.

A belief system that is dogmatic, unfalsifiable and calls skeptics evil, is a religion.

>>7057756
Wah, wah, wah. The sound of a man who can't defend the indefensible. Why don't you try defending astrology? You might have better luck.

>>7057754
IT'S A CONSPIRACY. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???

Oh wait I kept reading:
>3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
>The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850, was largely compiled in the 1980s and 1990s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.
>For IT infrastructure of the time this was an exceedingly large database and multiple copies could not be kept at a reasonable cost. There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable, in terms of best practices at the time, occurred.

>>7057763
Anything "unquestionable" is a lie with too much money at stake for correction

>>7057763
It's been debated to death. Get over it. You lost.

>Climate Change "Science" is dogmatic -- they refuse to debate it.
>Climate Change "Science" is unfalsifiable -- no plausible observation can show its wrong.
>Climate Change "Science" says skeptics are EVIL -- they're called deniers, just like Holocaust deniers.

Just switch the word Climate Change with Evolution and you too can see how retarded you sound.

I'm out. You're an idiot.

All those times I said that global warning is a load of bullshit /sci/ has called me a right wing whackjob.


Now look at you all clinging to data that has been proven to be tampered with.

Better yet look at the state of your scientific community and those that you have put on your pedestals.

They are all frauds. You worship lies.

Pathetic.

First off, global "warming" should be changed with climate "change".

Next, think of the following scenario. You are in a classroom with not many people. It will be, objectively colder until more people are introduced. Body heat and just purely fat fucks will give off more heat.

Now think about how bigger cities (factories / buildings) are with an exponential amount of more people (see above), this creates an "urban heat island" effect. Therefore, the data that has been collected from cities that have boomed within the past, oh, 50 years, cant really be representative of the climate because of all the impact of the cities.

It should be called climate "change" because there is very limited data outside of major cities to prove what the fuck is going on. But melting icecaps are a fairly good hint at the warming side of things.

>>7057792
Guess what.

The earth's temperature fluctuates every year.

It's not fucking newsworthy and there's no way to predict what is going to happen to our earth until we have a better understanding of the sun our core and our pressure changes.


I hate this modern science.

It's all built off bullshit being pedaled as hard science.

>>7057789
>All those times I said that global warning is a load of bullshit /sci/ has called me a right wing whackjob.
I agree that you could also be a hippie whackjob and apologize for the previous mislabeling.

>Now look at you all clinging to data that has been proven to be tampered with.
Nothing of the sort has been proven. Stop reading sensationalist scumrags and try doing science instead.

>Better yet look at the state of your scientific community and those that you have put on your pedestals.
Venerating people who do actual science instead of people that Koch bros. literally owns? Yeah, I can see how that might confuse you. And I take back one thing, you really are a wingnut instead of a hippie.

>They are all frauds. You worship lies.
How about trying science instead of old disproven rhetoric? I know its difficult, but you can't shut your eyes forever.

>Pathetic.
What's pathetic is not doing science.

>>7057826
Mainstream science that has been pushed onto young minds and to dolts are eating up the afterbirth of real scientists and real science. I respect science more than anything in the world for at it's most base form it is the only truth that is relevant in this existence.

But the sad fact of all this is that the scientific community and the historical community has been poisoned in order to push agendas and to rake in profit.

Raw data is being twisted and squeezed to fit into nice little packages to shove down the populace's throat and it is degrading and morose.

I'm no scientist and I'm no philosopher. I'm more interested in politics and writing than anything. But there is an overriding trend that has poured over from corrupt political and economic systems and flooded the most respected community on the planet earth.

So why not spurn it like I have?

If I'm a normal human being I'm just reacting to the filth that I'm forced to swallow on a day to day basis when it comes to so called scientific progress.

I didn't mean to offend. I have been drinking and I'm not in a good place. But I believe my words have meaning.

Sorry to have lashed out because you are riht about sensationalist media outlets running rampant with stories. But it wouldn't be the first time they did something of the sort when it comes to discussion of climate change now is it?

>>7057816
>The earth's temperature fluctuates every year
That's not what's being discussed
>...until we have a better understanding of the sun our core and our pressure changes
The activity of the sun is actively monitored. It doesn't match up to the current climate change that's being observed. The issue of pressure is new to me. Want to expand on that?

>>7056998
Temperature is going even when we are in a 30 year cycle which cools. The sea has been sucking up the energy. Once the cycle turns, around 2025, shit will hit the fan big time.

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

>>7056998
Temperature is going up even while in a 30 year cycle that cools the atmosphere. The sea has been sucking up the energy. Once the cycle turns, around 2025, shit will hit the fan big time.

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

>>7057845
I believe gravity has a great deal of influence to affect climate. Gravity from passing asteroids and solar storms and the planets other large influences from space. Maybe even smaller satellites like hunks of rock or our man made contraption whipping around the earth can cause an effect on weather through a series of chain reactions.

There could be the question of the constant disruption of aircraft. Causing some sort of rift.

All that seems minor compared of how vast our skies are but I truly believe that it is an intricate web up there that can be easily disrupted by other scapegoats like the industrial age.

>>7057851
>Once the cycle turns, around 2025, shit will hit the fan big time.

I fucking doubt it. I think that it will be a long time before your so called hastened ice age comes along.

It will be long since our bones turned to dust.

>>7057855
I'll be blunt. Do you also believe that astrology is accurate because of distant stars' effect on the water in our bodies?

Back to /x/ with you OP.

What's up with this idiot anyway? Is it just one crank, or are we looking at another effort to push FUD into more online arenas?

I have seen the global warming vs no global warming debate discussed multiple times, but has anyone done the analysis to determine if the costs of stopping global warming makes sense compared to say adapting to it (relocation, dikes, new crops, irrigation, etc) or even using geoengineering (like that iron seeding experimenter that worked really well near the Arctic)?

>>7057863
Why not we are all being pulled slowly towards to doom and merging of our nearest galaxy?

If gravity is a truth in this existence then it must be a constant truth in which that it affects everything no matter how unsubstantial.

>>7057857
>ice age comes along.
Are you illiterate? The cycle is sucking warmth out of the air *today*. Imagine what the temperatures will be when the sea pumps its heat back into the atmosphere in 2025.

>>7057864
Says the guy clinging to his textbook for dear life.

>>7057864
>MUH PEER REVIEW CULTIST

dude, if you think peer review means anything, you're clueless as fuck.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

>With this in mind, consider 1,000 hypotheses being tested of which just 100 are true (see chart). Studies with a power of 0.8 will find 80 of them, missing 20 because of false negatives. Of the 900 hypotheses that are wrong, 5%—that is, 45 of them—will look right because of type I errors. Add the false positives to the 80 true positives and you have 125 positive results, fully a third of which are specious. If you dropped the statistical power from 0.8 to 0.4, which would seem realistic for many fields, you would still have 45 false positives but only 40 true positives. More than half your positive results would be wrong.

>The negative results are much more trustworthy; for the case where the power is 0.8 there are 875 negative results of which only 20 are false, giving an accuracy of over 97%. But researchers and the journals in which they publish are not very interested in negative results. They prefer to accentuate the positive, and thus the error-prone. Negative results account for just 10-30% of published scientific literature, depending on the discipline. This bias may be growing. A study of 4,600 papers from across the sciences conducted by Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh found that the proportion of negative results dropped from 30% to 14% between 1990 and 2007. Lesley Yellowlees, president of Britain’s Royal Society of Chemistry, has published more than 100 papers. She remembers only one that reported a negative result.

Everyone's p-hacking these days! Don't trust shit until you've double-checked it yourself.

A famous biochemist who worked for big pharma said that they could replicate less than 10% of results when they started researching an anti-cancer drug. Science these days is fucking shit.

>>7057870
I am not illiterate.

Every generation has it's end of the world. Don't buy into the scare tactics.

And if you're right and we cross on an icy path. I'll let you fuck one of my wives.

>>7057873
> A famous biochemist who worked for big pharma said that they could replicate less than 10% of results when they started researching an anti-cancer drug.
It's a good thing that biology isn't a science then, isn't it?

>>7057874
>I am not illiterate
Your talk about ice proves otherwise.

>>7057873
look a /sci/fag that doesn't treat your community like a religion.

He treats it as he should. Inquisitive and diligent.

My posts have been attempted to be ridiculed and ripped apart but I feel as if I'm just the black sheep because I go against the rhetoric.

Good on you sir.

>>7057875
3edgy5me. go to bed, kid.

>>7057863
I thought you typed astronomy.

Why are you being a faggot to me?

I gave you a different viewpoint with a valid response and yet you cast me down.

Just because I haven't been published in a peer reviewed article (as if that means anything) doesn't mean my comments hold no weight.


Sorry to be blunt but you sir are a prick.

>>7057876
Fantastic retort.

For someone who believes he's intellectually above someone else like me he sure has degraded himself to respond like a child.

>>7057882
Wow, didn't mention ice. Baby steps.

>>7057869
>Why not
More reasons than I could outline in a single post.
Milkdromeda will happen eventually, but it's not doom. The interstellar gas between the two galaxies will be the most violent part of it. Actual stellar collisions are rare in galaxy collisions.
This might say something about your understanding of how the universe works and readiness to speak from a position of ignorance.

>If gravity is a truth in this existence then it must be a constant truth in which that it affects everything no matter how unsubstantial.
Not quite sure how to respond to this. I can't tell what's odd wording and what has substance.

Your previous post, about chaotic systems and small influences, is basically the butterfly effect. A miniscule effect on initial conditions on our planet, like from a meteor the size of a grain of rice that burns up in the atmosphere, can affect the weather when given enough time. That doesn't go on to say that it can affect climate. Weather is a chaotic system. Climate is balanced on many positively and negatively interacting factors, like cloud cover, ice cap coverage, atmospheric conditions, etc. Some of these are self correcting to some degree, which serves to filter out the randomness inherent in the butterfly effect and weather.
Not even sure what I'm doing. I'm curious about your point of view and thoughts on the matter, but a lot of this needs to be said.

Regardless of
>muh datapoints
the effects of global warming are all around us. Just look at the huge meltoffs at the poles and Iceland. Entire gletchers disappear and at an accelerating rate. Regardless of temperature measurements it shouldn't be very difficult for anyone to be able to deduce that shit is going to hit several fans.

>>7057885
Is that your attempt to coax out of me the rising concern of ice caps being depleted and then expanding at literally insane rates within the last twenty years?

And how the ocean is constantly absorbing most of the energy during the periods of time when the ice has been degraded to a mere speck and then instead of shifting the energy the polar zones are suddenly replenished with more and more ice every cycle?


Fucking eat a dick.

We are at least a century or three away.

>>7057887
>Milkdromeda will happen eventually, but it's not doom. The interstellar gas between the two galaxies will be the most violent part of it. Actual stellar collisions are rare in galaxy collisions.

What do you believe the gravity of such a force will do to our atmosphere and pressure system?

Earth will become uninhabitable very quickly.

>Your previous post, about chaotic systems and small influences, is basically the butterfly effect.

Yes I understand that. I believe it holds an astronomical amount of weight because of how many variables at are play. To the point where there might be so many disruptions that it will become completely impossible to have weather respectably predictable weather patterns.

>>7057903
Of course I can never say never.

Hopefully there might be another great war so we gain another substantial technological boost.

>>7057903
>What do you believe the gravity of such a force will do to our atmosphere and pressure system?
absolutely nothing
> Earth will become uninhabitable very quickly.
only if it gets launched into one of the black holes or hit by one of the asteroids launched from Kuiper belt

>>7057892
>Fucking eat a dick.
Ah, a true scientist at work.
And not a trace of references.

>>7057907
That's utter bullshit.

You think huge chunks of our atmosphere won't be ripped away if some large satellite impedes upon our solar system?

>only if it gets launched into one of the black holes or hit by one of the asteroids launched from Kuiper belt

That's the least of the worries. Images being slung out of orbit and whirled into nothingness only to become engulfed in darkness and cold. Hell if we get sucked into a black hole maybe there might be something on the other side rather than just a pit full of energy. What the hell I'm an optimist.

>>7057909
If you are so sure I'm wrong then prove me wrong dickwad.

You have only attacked me personally rather than my argument.

You show the statistics where I have faltered.

>>7057910
imagine*

>>7057910
>You think huge chunks of our atmosphere won't be ripped away if some large satellite impedes upon our solar system?
Again, interstellar distances are huge and the likelihood of another star getting anywhere close to our solar system is tiny.
> Hell if we get sucked into a black hole maybe there might be something on the other side rather than just a pit full of energy
a black hole is not the same as worm hole.

>>7057903
Anon you responded to originally
>What do you believe the gravity of such a force will do to our atmosphere and pressure system?
Very little. The sun is set far away from the center of the milky way. The collision will basically be between the centers of the galaxies, where most of the mass of each is, as their orbits decay and eventually merge over some ridiculous timespan. The strength of gravity is about mass of objects and the distance between them. Even though supermassive black holes can be stupidly huge, they'll be so far away when the collision happens that the gravitational effect will be nada. For example, the pull of Sagittarius A*, our supermassive black hole on you, is around 9.3*10^-13 newtons. You always have to keep a sense of scale.

>I believe it holds an astronomical amount of weight because of how many variables at are play.
Ok.

>>7057910
>Imagine being slung out of orbit and whirled into nothingness only to become engulfed in darkness and cold.
I think you're letting fantasy play out at the cost of reasonable inquiry and prediction based on a better understanding of how it would play out. Why on earth would a chunk of atmosphere be ripped away from the earth? You really need to get a better sense of scale, man. The atmosphere is a thin skin on the earth. It doesn't bloom way out into space. The volume of the atmosphere is a little bigger than the volume of all Earth's liquid water, if I remember correctly. The chances of a planet hurtling through our system (and not being bitchslapped by the sun, the single biggest influence of our system's gravity well) close enough to affect the earth at all is too small to have a discussion about. Also what >>7057916 said.

>>7057888
>huge meltoffs at the poles
why does everyone say this?

Antarctic ice is at its highest levels since records began

Arctic ice is below average but nowhere near as bad as it has been

Iceland has been plagued by increased volcanic activity

this heat is nothing out of the ordinary for earths climate

>>7057916
>Again, interstellar distances are huge and the likelihood of another star getting anywhere close to our solar system is tiny.

The collapse of a galaxy arbitrarily puts in many factors. What is believed today can easily be changed tomorrow. I contest that it is only a belief that I hold that there is a good chance that earth will not survive the transition. But you must contest that you are only going on belief as well.

>a black hole is not the same as worm hole.
Jesus hell. Can your asshole pucker up even tighter? Thank you professor but can you explain to me what it actually is then? Do we actually know what the inside of the burning engine holds?

>>7057917
>Very little. The sun is set far away from the center of the milky way. The collision will basically be between the centers of the galaxies, where most of the mass of each is, as their orbits decay and eventually merge over some ridiculous timespan. The strength of gravity is about mass of objects and the distance between them. Even though supermassive black holes can be stupidly huge, they'll be so far away when the collision happens that the gravitational effect will be nada. For example, the pull of Sagittarius A*, our supermassive black hole on you, is around 9.3*10^-13 newtons. You always have to keep a sense of scale.

Like I said in my previous statement above the collapse of a galaxy arbitrarily puts in many factors. Maybe even the butterfly effect will have a very detrimental conclusion to our home planet and yes I realize that the whole process will take a long time and by then earth may be a plain of glass and ash. But some part of me believes that it is human instinct to preserve our homeland and we would make grand efforts to preserve it.

But regardless it is my belief that there are many chain reactions that cannot be measured at this time. These chain reactions could very well lead our planet into being cast into the void or being uninhabitable or worse just being engulfed.

>>7057929
>Antarctic ice is at its highest levels since records began
A source for mass or area would be nice, because this is news to me.

>>7057924
Our reasonable predictions can't even get the afternoon weather right. What makes you think we can get a full scale galaxy collide correct with an infinite laundry list of variables on the table?

>>7057930
>the collapse of a galaxy arbitrarily puts in many factors
I was under the impression that we were talking about the collision of galaxies. I have no idea what a galaxy collapse might be, where you got that from, and where you got the idea that such a thing can change the laws of physics.
Again, I hate to be that guy. When you talk about chain reactions and the butterfly effect, you have to make sure that you're also talking about a chaotic system. There has to be something plausible there to have a real discussion about it. Splashing around in the kiddie pool of "it COULD happen" is worthless.

Just in case the other anon doesn't call you on it,
>But you must contest that you are only going on belief as well.
Come on. Don't try to emulate creationists.

>>7057932
That's because weather is a chaotic system. You can't reasonably expect someone to predict the path of a double pendulum given initial conditions for the same reason.
You can use simulations, however. You can model various milkdromeda collisions with different conditions and check the outcomes. This can give you an idea for how rare stellar collisions are and how the orbit of stars generally react. The reason you can't do this with weather is because you would have to find a way to simulate everything down to an unfeasible scale across the whole planet in order to get an accurate picture. Even if you have enough time on every supercomputer ever in order to run that, you couldn't get all of the conditions in the first place.
I'd be shocked if weather reports aren't done with simulations, just less accurate ones with much less data to begin with. A "good enough" version of above, the tradeoff being inaccuracy.
TL;DR weather reporting makes galaxy collisions look like a cakewalk.

I'm waiting for a long response for my thinking.

Or I think these two physics students are running with my idea and making a paper out of it.

Either way godspeed.

>>7057940
>Come on. Don't try to emulate creationists.

You are going off a barbaric system of predictions. I do have a basic understanding of physics and we are going off the same fucking model. But you are implying that the resources we have now will accurately predict the safety of earth between now and millions of years from now. Are you insane? And how dare you call me a creationist for implying that we do not have the resources to predict such an event. The collapse of a galaxy and being absorbed by another isn't such a wild thought as well.

Please step down from your pedestal. You know just as much as I do for these up coming events. My points are just as valid as yours are for there are an in-numerous amount of variables that plague both our predictions. To cling to such a belief that you know what is going to happen millions of years from now in a field that is littered with edits is disappointing. You are putting as much faith into your stance as a creationist while throwing mine aside because I can admit human error and hubris.