/sci/ - Science & Math

>create heat
What did he mean by this?

can we fucking please stop having thirty climate changes per day

>>9344772
>I know the science!
>create heat
No you don't. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat radiated from the Sun. Also, CO2 isn't the only thing to worry about, nor is global warming alone. How about toxic chemicals occuring in food sources in far greater quantities than millenia prior? Or the piles of hydrocarbon plastics that litter our countrysides and oceans, harming wildlife and being broken down into microscopic granules that then end up inside us from consuming seafoods? Fuck off with this bullshit, we've fucked this planet up thus far. The Anthropocene is a very real epoch.

>>9344804
/thread

>>9344788
That would be counter productive to the destruction of the west, anon.

Have there been any reliable predictive models of warming?

top kek

>>9344845
Go discuss your political agenda somewhere else brainlet.

>>9345063
Since we don't understand climate, no. We have to refit every 5 years.

>>9344845
Socialism is the future and your idiotic pretending does nothing.

>>9345094
>Since we don't understand climate, no. We have to refit every 5 years.
How good are the best ones?

>>9345096
>Socialism
back to /pol/, back to /pol/ I say!

>>9345096
>Socialism is the future
>>>/reddit/

In order to accurately measure the temperature of something, you'd need to measure the exact same atoms at the exact same place with the exact same measuring device.

You cannot accurately measure the "climate's temperature because of this. There isn't even an objective definition of "climate", it's just weather over a longer period which doesn't mean anything.

>>9345096
>Socialism is the future and your idiotic pretending does nothing.
you have to be at least 18 to post on 4chan

>>9345110
Here's a summary with a decent methodology that shows how, without refitting, the predictions get less accurate.

>>9345207
>if can't prove it wrong just cast doubt
you deniers are learning

>>9344804
fucking christ, /thread. some people are absolutely stupid.

>>9345231
Don't be confused, i don't think they're just inaccurate. They're wrong.
How can you claim an ensemble of *inequivalent* models, from which you sometimes throw one off if it disagrees with current data (and put it back in if it agrees in the future), *predicts* something? Climate models are just like financial models- their predictive power diminishes fast.
This way of doing "science" is equivalent to God of gaps. Shamelessly exploiting human irrationality, that's what climate alarmism is.

>>9345254
climate change is still a big problem, just because simulating climate for the entire Earth is hard doesn't change anything

>>9345254
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

>>9345063
Depends how you quantify reliable

>>9345207
>abstract title so shit it cannot get a presentation slot and had to do a poster

Climate scientists here, lol, poster halls are for undergrads and 1st year grad students. If you're grown ass adults and still doing posters at AGU you should rethink your lives. There are literally thousands of talk slots at AGU

Also Cato ""Institute"" lol

>>9345282
Condensed matter physics uses dozens of models, but those are actual models testing actual laws, not just a playground for sub-grid parameter-hunting
>>9345283
>Ad hominem
>>9345938
>Descends to "muh authority" to avoid explaining the errors in methodology (there are several)
The absolute state of alarmists

>>9345955
>explaining the errors in methodology

- let's cherrypick studies with low climate sensitivity

- let's cite one paper (Hargreaves et al. 2012, Annan and Hargreaves 2011, van Hateren 2012 ) several times each to pad out space in our figure because there aren't enough studies to back up my number

- let's misquote Andreas Schmittner's transient climate sensitivity from the LGM studies and call it equilibrium climate sensitivity

See this review in 2017 of the latest state of science climate sensitivity estimate from meta study compilation by actual scientist
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017.pdf..

3 degrees per doubling of CO2 are still the stone cold averages of all studies.

for Patrick Michaels, a 60 years old grown ass man to misrepresent the state of science in sad sad poster hall, a venue designed for undergrads to show their babby research because he couldn't get a talk slot in AGU is really really pathetic

gg EZ denier

Yet anothe "Tard or Shill?" thread. Why do mods even tolerate this silly shit? It has nothing to do with science.

>>9345207
>Cato

>>9346063
More like
>be 60 years old grown ass paid oil cuck
>poster presentation because he couldn't get a talk slot
>had to present his shit poster next to 19 years old undergrads
>muh cherrypicked meta analysis

This is the state of "respected" climate deniers

>>9346062
Blowing the fuck up pseudo science and /pol/tards is the most /sci/ence thing there is. What's not to like?

>>9344845
>mfw /pol/acks unironically believe in propaganda that's been definitively known to be fake for over a decade
https://www.snopes.com/history/document/communistrules.asp
or maybe your post is just b8, I dunno

>>9345207
>I don't understand how confidence intervals work: the poster

>no methodology
>no discussion
>just introduction, conclusion, and a few figures with no statistics to back them up

also, obligatory
>Cato """"Institute""""

>it's another denier BTFO episode rerun
When will they ever learn

>>9344804
The amount of heat absorbable by CO2 in the atmosphere is already near its maximum. You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.

The whole global warming caused by CO2 thing is a politically motivated lie designed to tax energy and redistribute wealth from white nations to brown ones.

>>9345141
>In order to accurately measure the temperature of something, you'd need to measure the exact same atoms at the exact same place with the exact same measuring device.
Humanity has really reached a new low now that we have temperature and weather deniers.

>>9346211
>You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.
Source: the equation deep in the recess of my asshole

See >>9341261 for my review of band saturation effect. It is a real effect and a well known one, included in all basic climate models, but has been memefied by deniers as if adding more CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't matter now

>>9344772

#12
#30
#34
#73

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>9346220
>Humanity has really reached a new low now that we have temperature and weather deniers

We just had a climate thread couple weeks ago where the denier doesn't believe in numbers
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/9319652/#9321147

>>9346211
>The amount of heat absorbable by CO2 in the atmosphere is already near its maximum.
Not in the upper atmosphere.

>You could increase atmospheric CO2 by an order of magnitude and get less than two percent increased heat absorption.
Heat absorption measured in what? The radiative forcing of CO2 had been directly measured and is well known. Nothing you are saying contradicts what climatologists say about global warming.

>>9346238
Yeah I was in that thread. That idiot is probably in this thread too.

>>9345063
Actually, Jim Hansen's models from 1988 were pretty spot on, enough to convince some conservative climate deniers to switch positions to the sane side. For context, deniers like to point to scenario A, which assumed exponential greenhouse emissions, as an example of climate alarmism, however as you can see the other two models fit observed warming trends pretty closely. Scenario C assumed a slowing of greenhouse emissions toward the 2000s, which actually happened, and it fits observations the closest.

>>9346252
>Upper atmosphere
Nigga we arent in the upper atmosphere

>>9346278
>Nigga we arent in the upper atmosphere
When you do the thermodynamic calculation to do the energy balance between visible light coming from the sun and infrared light leaving the earth you have to integrate over the whole atmospheric column

>>9345063
I remember a climate change thread some months ago in which a denier demanded that we show him predictive models that had proven accurate.
someone posted a paper presenting a model, and a retrospective paper comparing the model's predictions to actual measurements from the interval studied.
the denier then insisted that one didn't count, since it wasn't really predicting the future since the retrospective paper was published after the interval of interest. we tried explaining to him that you can't test a prediction of something that's still in the future, but he didn't quite understand it...

>>9345063
There is a whole 150 page chapter on IPCC dedicated for just that

IPCC AR5 Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

>>9345231
>10 years ago
>muh global warming. gimme gimme gimme
>today
>muh climate change (hello tautology). gimme gimme gimme
Climate "science" where cherrypicking is the ultimate tool, on both sides (deniers have to go to extra lengths). It's amusing, like watching two retarded kids fight. But it works damn well when it comes to money, props for that.

>>9346211
That's bullshit, only it only addresses but a fraction of my post. Let's consider other downsides of fossil fuels, shall we? Spillages, that wouldn't occur if it was still locked under the ground. Hydrocarbon products, as previously mentioned. Pollution in some cities that decreases longevity, increases risk of cancer, et al. Mhm...

>>9346580
>*only it only = also it only

>>9346278
You do know that heat radiates, right?

Climate alarmists are some of the dumbest people alive.
Climate change is media fearmongering just like ebola,ozone depletion and everything else that gets people to click on it due to fear.Only that climate change gets hammered more because big corps have new products you don't need to sell,like self-driving cars.
Why can't you realize it?

>>9346615
>Why can't you realize it?
Because I do primary research on climate change and I can see that it was the deniers who misrepresent the science, like >>9345207
and >>9346035 for comparison. A blatant selective cherrypick of meta studies, and a """study""" that goes straight from Introduction to Conclusion without describing any methodology, stats or math. This is as blatant of a misrepresentation of the state of science as possible.

And you are blinded by right wing propaganda while pretending to be woke redpill fag

>>9346984
Haha yea "Right Wing Propaganda"
You Climate Alarmists are so close minded you cant see whats right in front of you.
I bet you believe the earth is round.

>>9346276
> Scenario C assumed a slowing of greenhouse emissions toward the 2000s, which actually happened
As usual, climate alarmists caught in another lie. It's true that scenario C remains the most accurate climate model. However, Hansen defined scenario C as "a reduction in CO2 growth rates such that the annual growth rate is zero" That has simply not occurred.

The funny thing is that Hansen's study is probably the strongest evidence against anthropogenic climate change. His model which, posited on the idea of no increase in emissions, has actually held despite an increase in emissions, suggesting a negative feedback mechanism is countering anthropogenic emissions.

>>9344782
he doesn't know WTF he means,
he is just parroting what he heard on TeeVee

>>9345094
>we don't understand climate
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>9346984
>a """study""" that goes straight from Introduction to Conclusion without describing any methodology, stats or math.
That's an academic poster you absolute hominid, not the full paper. A real scientist would have recognized that right away. Why is it always the non-scientists who fall for the global warming scam?

>>9345141
>you'd need to measure the exact same atoms
Lrn2instrumentation fgt pls

Why doesn't CO2 block the heat coming from the sun? Shouldn't it have a cooling effect?

>>9346090
>pseudo pscience
denialism defined

>>9347076
nice omg climate alarmist btfo once again
/thread haha yeah nice skeptics 1 scientists sqrt(-1)

(captcha: DANGER ADVICE)

>>9346211
>1922
try to keep up fgt pls

>>9347086
Any poster worth a damn should have other sections too. Look up on google "babby's first scientific poster template." Not having any of those means that you have something to hide with regards to your methodology

As I mentioned before, poster is a venue for undergrad to show their babby research. For a 60 years old grown as Cato ""scientist"" to not get a talk slot at AGU, where there are literally thousands available because his abstract is so shit that he had to present a shit poster is pretty embarrassing, especially since he blatantly cherrypicked the studies and misleadingly omit others that doesn't agree with him.

In the immortal words of Drumf, SAD

>>9347102
rekt

>>9346553
>when it comes to money
whatever you say, Troy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zRvYp8QKNY

>>9347102
Everything in the CATO poster is also in that preview, except the "Method" section doesn't have a proper header and it's instead at the end of the "Intro" section.

It seems you have only been able to
>Attack the poster format
>Attack the poster author

Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist. A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself. You have done nothing but throw insults and revealed your lack of scientific intelligence.

>>9347076
try again

>>9347115
I have already discussed this. Scenario C is the most accurate, but was based on the assumption that there would be no CO2 growth. As seen in >>9347076, there continued to be CO2 growth each year. Based on that model, human CO2 emissions had no effect on temperature.

>>9347076
Ducking hell you're retarded. You're confusing CO2 concentration with CO2 forcing and you're confusing CO2 forcing with all GHG forcing. Scenario C means that total GHG forcing stops growing, not CO2 concentration. Also, scenario B's projection is the most accurate.

>>9347114
>A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself. You have done nothing but throw insults and revealed your lack of scientific intelligence.

I did all that here >>9346035. See the meta study https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017.pdf that doesn't cherrypick. Maybe if Patrick Michaels doesn't cherrypick the studies in his meta studies about equilibrium climate sensitivity, he could've gotten a nature paper also, instead of presenting a poster next to 19 years old undergrad in a poster hall.

>Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist.
How many times do I have to BTFO denier before they learn that real climate scientist do lurk this place to argue with undergrads whether 0.9999 = 1 in their free time

>>9347134
>Participant On-Line Antarctic Resource Information Coordination Environment
talk about a forced acronym

>>9347091
The sun doesn't send heat to us, it sends light which only gets converted to heat when it's absorbed by the earth. Light does not get absorbed by CO2 (which is why you can't see it) but infrared heat being emitted by the Earth's surface does.

>>9346584
There's no point correcting yourself, he isn't going to reply.

>>9347114
>Once again, you have made it quite apparent you are not a scientist >>9347134

Kek another day another edgy poltard BTFO

>>9347120
>I have already discussed this. Scenario C is the most accurate
The image in the past you're replying to disproves this, you utter moron. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and can't even recognize when you get BTFO. Your picture is next to the definition of Dunning Kruger in the dictionary.

>but was based on the assumption that there would be no CO2 growth
No, that is only one part of possible events that would lead to scenario C. Scenario C is simply a trend of radiative forcing, which friends on more than CO2. But this is irrelevant since scenario C is not the most accurate.

>>9346081
Yeah but this is Cato's track record. At this point we can just laugh at anything someone posts if it comes from there.

>>9346220

I'm not denying temperature, I'm denying that you can objectively measure the temperature of something as vague as "climate".

For example, if it rains, the raindrops will differ in temperature, the "air" around the raindrops will differ in temperature, the measuring device itself will differ in temperature. There's no objective starting point.

>>9347143
This. Venus' atmosphere is opaque to visible light so less of the Sun's light reaches the surface than Earth (despite being closerto the Sun) but the surface temperature of Venus is 200°C. Why? Because Venus' atmosphere is chock full of GHGs which block outgoing longwave radiation.

Mars is the opposite, with no atmosphere to trap outgoing longwave radiation Mars retains very little heat. With no heat to power chemical weathering (and also no volcanic activity because Mars is dead) no GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere.

>>9347170
There are defined scales and corrective measures. Like they don't just measure temperature, they also measure wind speed and all that stuff and they can correct their thermometers for things like the heat island effect and wind chill to get a reliable average.

>>9347190

What atoms are they measuring the temperature of exactly? It's all well and good saying they correct things which could make the temperature go up or down, but what is that objective, definable thing that is actually being measured?

>>9347170
>I'm not denying temperature, I'm denying that you can objectively measure the temperature of something as vague as "climate".
No one is measuring the "temperature of the climate" for fuck's sake. That's an oxymoron. The climate is the weather over time and space and weather is the state of the atmosphere, which includes temperature. No one asks "what temperature is the weather?" If you can't even get the basic language about this subject correct then maybe just MAYBE you need to fucking pick up a textbook and learn something before opening your shitty mouth and dumping verbal excrement all over us.

>For example, if it rains, the raindrops will differ in temperature, the "air" around the raindrops will differ in temperature, the measuring device itself will differ in temperature. There's no objective starting point.
This is irrelevant. Temperature is the *average* kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. One does not need to measure every molecule because a thermometer is constantly showing the average result of countless molecules transferring kinetic energy through it. These samples are then averaged over the entire globe to find the global temperature of the atmosphere.

>>9346035
>>9347134

>- let's cherrypick studies with low climate sensitivity
Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5. So you're saying the models are cherrypicked... By the IPCC!! LOL!

This argument kind of backfired for you huh?

>- let's cite one paper (Hargreaves et al. 2012, Annan and Hargreaves 2011, van Hateren 2012 ) several times each to pad out space in our figure because there aren't enough studies to back up my number
Again, that's what's in the IPCC 5.

This really isn't working out for you huh?

>- let's misquote Andreas Schmittner's transient climate sensitivity from the LGM studies and call it equilibrium climate sensitivity
Why don't you look at the paper yourself. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385 Funny, because Schmittner is referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity

Swing and a miss again.

>See this review in 2017 of the latest state of science climate sensitivity estimate from meta study compilation by actual scientist
>3 degrees per doubling of CO2 are still the stone cold averages of all studies.
How do we know these studies aren't cherrypicked? I read through the article and there's not even inclusion criteria for that data. This is the kind of schlock that gets published in Nature these days?


>gg EZ
Cute. A shame science isn't a Call of Duty match where someone might think you actually won this argument.

>>9347206
The surface conditions of the Earth controlling for factors such as topography, wind, material that the land is made out of. There would be some agreed upon standards, like "assuming the Earth was a perfect sphere, the air was completely still etc, what would the temperature in a small patch of land of arbitrary size around this weather station be?". Then many different datasets from many different regions could be used to approximate the average for a larger area (with some uncertainty).

>>9347219
>No one asks "what temperature is the weather?"

If you cannot ask what the temperature of the weather is, then you cannot also ask what the temperature of the climate is. Neither make any sense.

>maybe just MAYBE you need to fucking pick up a textbook and learn something

Yeah I've tried to let other people think for me but concluded it doesn't work and only creates more questions. Maybe try thinking for yourself for once.

>Temperature is the *average* kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance.

What molecules and what substance is being measured then?

>>9347241
The molecules of air, I think they would use an IR thermometer nowadays.

>>9347163
>Scenario C is simply a trend of radiative forcing, which friends on more than CO2.
Are you actually delusional? It says what scenario C represents here >>9347120
>But this is irrelevant since scenario C is not the most accurate.
Wrong. See pic.

>>9347229
>Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5.
Completely false. Michaels completely ignored papers that used a pre-instrumental analysis of climate sensitivity. If he had used the same papers as the IPCC he would have come up with the same climate sensitivity. He did not. He cherrypicked the papers with the lowest estimates.

>>9347238

I'm still not clear on what exactly is being measured I'm afraid. Doesn't sound very objective at all.

>>9347247

And what substance are those molecules in?

>>9347262
the air

>>9346276
>unironically calling someone a climate denier
opinion discarded

>>9347241
>If you cannot ask what the temperature of the weather is, then you cannot also ask what the temperature of the climate is. Neither make any sense.
The point wrt way over your head buddy. No one except you is asking for "the temperature of the climate," because that's an oxymoron.

>Yeah I've tried to let other people think for me but concluded it doesn't work and only creates more questions. Maybe try thinking for yourself for once.
Yes reading a book will clearly brainwash you and stop you from thinking for yourself, Cleetus. You aren't going to think for yourself very well if you don't have correct information on what you're trying to think about. Which is why you keep making idiotic mistakes.

>What molecules and what substance is being measured then?
The atmosphere, as I said. Try reading everything twice and then maybe you won't be so confused.

>>9347271

So the temperature of the air is being measured? Therefore climate = air?

>>9347279

>The point wrt way over your head buddy. No one except you is asking for "the temperature of the climate," because that's an oxymoron.

So the temperature of what is being measured exactly?

>Yes reading a book will clearly brainwash you and stop you from thinking for yourself, Cleetus. You aren't going to think for yourself very well if you don't have correct information on what you're trying to think about. Which is why you keep making idiotic mistakes.

This assumes you have the correct information when you rely on pseudo-science financed by those who have an interest in doing so.

>The atmosphere

Therefore it follows that the atmosphere creates weather, correct? Are they different things?

>>9347310
kek

>>9345207
>Patrick J. Michaels
>Cato """"""""""""""Institute"""""""""""""""

Didn't need to read anymore than that to know the information presented would be fraudulent, much like Cato itself as an organization. Look up who funds Cato / who has funded them in the past, you won't be surprised with the results.

>>9347229
>Dr. Michael's inclusion criteria is all the papers from IPCC 5
Except that it's not. Figure 10.20. from AR5. See how many studies he excluded. Again a stone cold average is still 3C

>Funny, because Schmittner is referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity
Okay I admit that was my bad. I was thinking about the later UVic model runs about transient climate sensitivity during the deglaciation at PMIP (Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project).

>>9347249
>Are you actually delusional? It says what scenario C represents here >>9347120 #
Are you actually illiterate? That does not contradict what you're replying to. What gets plugged into the model is radiative forcing, not CO2 concentrations.

>>9347249
>See pic
I see satellite trends improperly aligned with the data in MSPaint. See >>9347115
for actual plotted data.

>>9347273
>Unironically denying scientific facts while throwing a tantrum when someone points this out
>>>/x/

>>9347310
This was already explained to you. The temperature of the molecules in the atmosphere.

>This assumes you have the correct information when you rely on pseudo-science financed by those who have an interest in doing so.
I look forward to you proving it is pseudo-science. Until then fuck off nutter.

>Therefore it follows that the atmosphere creates weather, correct? Are they different things?
The weather is the state of the atmosphere. Why do you continue to ignore what is right in front of you and ask nonsensical questions?

>It's another thread where climate denier faggots getting B T F O left and right
Grabbing the popcorn to sit back and enjoy the show, thanks to the other anons who btfo these clowns on a daily basis

>>9347367
>molecules in the atmosphere.

But you've said the molecules are the atmosphere. How can they be the atmosphere while also being in it? Either it's one or the other.

>I look forward to you proving it is pseudo-science. Until then fuck off nutter.

Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Climate change falls under none of these categories.

>The weather is the state of the atmosphere.

What's the objective difference between the atmosphere and weather?

>>9347400
Are you serious?

>>9347400
>Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Climate change falls under none of these categories.
This alone just shows how you are not arguing from a position of good standing, you're just regurgitating whatever the parrots in your partisan bubble themselves parrot from articles in breitbart or shitty climate denier blogs. If you actually, unironically believe that climate science is not testable or observable, you have your head so far up your own ass there's no point in continuing this conversation, because that's one of the most incorrect things you've said in this entire thread.
It's absolutely astounding the level of cognitive dissonance we're witnessing here. You're so profoundly ignorant and you actually believe that your inane ramblings are correct.

Pro-tip, if you're going to disparage an entire scientific field with no hmmm. evidence to back up your arguments, you will never win.

>What's the objective difference between the atmosphere and weather?
Jesus Christ, it just gets worse and worse. There's NO ONE to blame but yourself for being so goddamn ignorant about the basic scientific concepts related to climate change. Fucking educate yourself before you shitpost here again you illiterate pleb. Read a text book on climate science, read some scientific literature, do ANYTHING that will maybe help you be any less of a retarded fuck.

What I find so hilarious about you climate change deniers is how you hold climate science to such a high standard, yet you don't have ANY standards for climate contrarian """science.""" You just automatically believe an entire field of study is inaccurate and not following the scientific method, while simultaneously propping up all the contrarian non-climate science ramblings that aren't based in evidence or observations as legitimate.

>>9347384
yea lmao fuckin btfod
we did it guys! We are the kingz of 4chan!
We successfully argued our point on an imageboard!

..Now what?

>>9347404

That's not an argument.

>>9347426

Until you can provide an objective definition of what climate actually is, then all you'll get out of it is pseudo-science. It will never be empirical. The rest of what you said is just committing the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Please tell me what the objective difference is between the weather and the atmosphere, notice how you've completed avoided that.

>>9347400
>But you've said the molecules are the atmosphere. How can they be the atmosphere while also being in it? Either it's one or the other.
This is like saying 1 is a natural number therefore 1 cannot be in the natural numbers. Are you trolling or just severely retarded?

>Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Climate change falls under none of these categories.
Climatology is observable, testable, avid repeatable. Try again.

>What's the objective difference between the atmosphere and weather?
The atmosphere is an object that exists across space and time while weather is the state of that object in a certain place and time.

>>9347456
Weather - the average conditions of the atmosphere on timescales less than one year.
Climate - the average conditions of the atmosphere on timescales greater than one year.
Does that help?

>>9347426
sea ice is not normal

>>9347477
If sea ice is not normal then neither are humans.

Where is the hole that these intellectually bankrupt cretins crawl from, ave how do we close it forever?

>>9347461
>This is like saying 1 is a natural number therefore 1 cannot be in the natural numbers.

Are the molecules being measured in the atmosphere, or are they the atmosphere? As soon as you separate these molecules they cease to be the atmosphere.

>Climatology is observable, testable, avid repeatable.

How and by whom? It appears it's only "observable" and "testable" using satellites and graphs and "semi-empirical" computer models. It's certainly not repeatable because the variables cannot be controlled (we don't even know all the variables that make up this pseudo-scientific word called "climate"). The only people who can supposedly measure such a thing are all government scientists. That's who you're getting your data from because you ain't gonna get it yourself like a real scientist would attempt.

>The atmosphere is an object that exists across space and time while weather is the state of that object in a certain place and time.

You can't say it's an object without an objective definition.

>>9347469

"Conditions of the atmosphere" is again very vague and not objective.

>>9344772
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.

right-wing extremist here, personally I'm a huge fan of "climate change"

>>9347525
>Are the molecules being measured in the atmosphere, or are they the atmosphere?
The atmosphere is made up of molecules which are being measured. Any further repetition of this question will be ignored.

>It appears it's only "observable" and "testable" using satellites and graphs and "semi-empirical" computer models.
The climate is directly observed in a multitude of ways, such as measuring the generative with a thermometer. The theories of climatology are then tested by seeing how well they match observations. Is the same as any other science.

>It's certainly not repeatable because the variables cannot be controlled
Repeatability means that the same result occurs in multiple tests, it does not require variables to be controlled. For example, there are different temperature records with different methods that can be compared to each other for agreement.

>we don't even know all the variables that make up this pseudo-scientific word called "climate"
We understand the major factors that affect the climate, which is why we have been able to predict global surface temperature for several decades:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

>The only people who can supposedly measure such a thing are all government scientists.
Most scientists are government funded. Until you actually show how they're wrong, you're just as retarded as creationists and flat eaters who make the same ad hominem argument.

>You can't say it's an object without an objective definition.
You were given an objective definition. Of you actually believed what you're claiming, you would have to constantly lie.

>>9347597
>The atmosphere is made up of molecules which are being measured.

It's certainly being 'made up', that's for sure. How many molecules are being measured, and how many molecules 'make up' the atmosphere? Trillions, quadrillions?

>The climate is directly observed in a multitude of ways, such as measuring the generative with a thermometer.

So the thermometer will only measure the molecules of the atmosphere and nothing else?

>Repeatability means that the same result occurs in multiple tests, it does not require variables to be controlled. For example, there are different temperature records with different methods that can be compared to each other for agreement.

What tests? This isn't a lab setting. There's no direct experimenting going on because it's impossible.

>We understand the major factors that affect the climate, which is why we have been able to predict global surface temperature for several decades:

Who's "we"? People funded by the government? Oh great I'm sure they don't have an agenda.

>Most scientists are government funded. Until you actually show how they're wrong, you're just as retarded as creationists and flat eaters who make the same ad hominem argument.

I know they're wrong because what they claim to be measuring cannot be measured empirically. The problem is that this logic isn't enough for you, you need million dollar satellites and messy graphs and big computers and official titles and you will automatically believe whatever they say. If you're not in that club then you can't do shit to convince people like you.

>You were given an objective definition.

Calling the atmosphere an object is circular, you haven't given a clear objective definition.

>>9347651
>How many molecules are being measured, and how many molecules 'make up' the atmosphere? Trillions, quadrillions?

Pressure = Force / Area

Pressure = 101,325 Pa

Assume Earth is a perfect sphere with radius 6371 km. Area of Earth = 4pi*6371000^2 m^2 = 5.1 * 10^14 m^2

Force = Pressure * Area

Force = (101,325 Pa * 5.1 * 10^14 m^2) = 5.17 * 10^19 N

Force = mass * gravity

mass = Force / gravity

mass = 5.17 * 10^19 N / 9.8 m/s^2 = 5.27 * 10^18 kg = 5.27 * 10^21 g

molar mass of air is around 29 g/mol

(5.27 * 10^21 g) * (1 mole / 29 grams) * (6.02214179*10^23 molecules/mole) = 1.09 * 10^44 molecules

You might have known how to do that yourself if you ever read a book, Cletus.

>>9344845
Lenin never said that

>>9345118
It kind of is tho. You can't have capitalism forever. Humanity can't keep advancing and not have some sort of socialistic society eventually.

>>9344772
CO2 is how much carbon dioxide we have for the plants to eat, higher doesn't mean better.

>Doesn't cause that.
Yes, farting cows do more.

But there is a thing like "dude we need this oil elsewhere than being burned" It's cheaper in the end if oil is not burned.

>>9347842
You don't need to keep advancing to keep buying and selling. Although, I do agree that socialism is the future. National socialism, that is.

>>9347651
>How many molecules are being measured, and how many molecules 'make up' the atmosphere? Trillions, quadrillions?
The fact that you don't know this really shows that you have absolutely no scientific background in any of these fields. Go back to college, take some chemistry, physics, and philosophy of science courses.

The answer to your question is on the order of a quadrillion trillion trillion molecules in the whole atmosphere. Give or take a few zeroes

Here's a question for you, what is temperature? When you can answer that, then you can come back. This is /sci/. You can't just come in here with no knowledge and just shitpost without humility.

>>9347842
>You can't have capitalism forever.
[citation needed]

kek these climate threads always turned into grade school science class babbysitting course for deniers.

Might as well merge this with >>9340584

>>9347831

Why would I want to calculate theoretical constructs?

How many of these '1.09 * 10^44' molecules are measured?

>>9347865

>The fact that you don't know this really shows that you have absolutely no scientific background in any of these fields.

That's because they're not scientific fields, they're just metaphysics pretending to be science.

>Go back to college

That's probably the worst thing to do. There's a reason it's free.

>The answer to your question is on the order of a quadrillion trillion trillion molecules in the whole atmosphere. Give or take a few zeroes

Quite the imagination you have there.

>Here's a question for you, what is temperature?

No one really knows, it's just energy like everything else that's experienced differently by our senses. It can be very useful in environments we have a good amount of control over, but when it comes to earth we don't have a clue how to measure it in any meaningful way. But we can still pretend, much easier.

>>9347887
automation, try not to derail the thread any worse.

>>9347940
>Quite the imagination you have there.
This is pretty basic chemistry. Do you have a refutation? Is chemistry just metaphysics now?

>No one really knows.
Wrong. Temperature has a rigorous definition. Learn and understand what it is then come back to the board. The relationship between temperature and energy is more subtle than it seems.

If it's temperature that's putting a goose in your gravy, here's a chart of the heat content in the oceans. Notice how it's going up. I wonder why that could be...

>>9347940
>what is temperature
>no one really knows

The absolute state of climate deniers.

>>9347651
>So the thermometer will only measure the molecules of the atmosphere and nothing else? A covered thermometer, yes.

>What tests? This isn't a lab setting. There's no direct experimenting going on because it's impossible.
https://www.google.com/search?q=climatology+experiments&oq=climatology+experiments&aqs=chrome..69i57.6721j1j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

>Who's "we"? People funded by the government? Oh great I'm sure they don't have an agenda.
Ad hominem.

>I know they're wrong because what they claim to be measuring cannot be measured empirically.
But that's wrong you massive retard. It's empirically measured every day all obey the world. You are denying basic reality.

>The problem is that this logic isn't enough for you, you need million dollar satellites and messy graphs and big computers and official titles and you will automatically believe whatever they say. If you're not in that club then you can't do shit to convince people like you.
What fucking logic? You have said nothing that could possibly construed as an argument. You are too stupid to have an adult conversation.

>Calling the atmosphere an object is circular, you haven't given a clear objective definition.
Why do you keep lying when the definition is right here in the thread for anyone to read?

>>9347940
>That's probably the worst thing to do. There's a reason it's free.
Yup. I don't use the roads either, there's a reason using them is free. Nor the police if I need them. There's a reason calling 999/911 is free. Nor the free samples at my local greengrocer--if they're giving them away there must be something wrong with them. I only go to the hospital if I know I'm gonna get a €10,000 fee. If I wasn't getting one of those, they're probably stealing my kidneys. I also don't send my kids to public school. Who knows what they teach them there.

>>9347966
>This is pretty basic chemistry. Do you have a refutation? Is chemistry just metaphysics now?

It's all theoretical, you've done a calculation based on assumptive axioms.

>Wrong. Temperature has a rigorous definition.

Provide it.

>If it's temperature that's putting a goose in your gravy, here's a chart of the heat content in the oceans. Notice how it's going up. I wonder why that could be...

Oh cool a graph it must be true, they certainly can't be faked.

>>9348044
Every time you post you move the goalposts, how sad.

>>9348044
>It's all theoretical, you've done a calculation based on assumptive axioms.
Name a single scientific discipline that doesn't rely on these. You can't. All of science relies on the belief (and it is just a belief) that there is order in the universe and that it can be known. That's an assumptive axiom that you cannot avoid. Does that mean that all of science is bunk because "it's all theoretical"? No. That's a retarded position to take.

>Provide it.
1/T = dS/dU

>>9347975
>A covered thermometer, yes

What does that mean?

>https://www.google.com/search?q=climatology+experiments&oq=climatology+experiments&aqs=chrome..69i57.6721j1j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Nothing of use there.

>Ad hominem.

It's wise to follow the money.

>But that's wrong you massive retard. It's empirically measured every day all obey the world. You are denying basic reality.

Who told you that?

>What fucking logic? You have said nothing that could possibly construed as an argument. You are too stupid to have an adult conversation.

Ad hominem.

>Why do you keep lying when the definition is right here in the thread for anyone to read?

What physical properties does the atmosphere have?

>>9344804
>traps heat

>>9348126

>>9348111
>What physical properties does the atmosphere have?
Gaseous and locally obeys equipartition. This is basically all you need to reconstruct the globabl temperature gradient from a finite set of data points.

>>9348126
What is wrong with that phrase?

>>9348129

>>9347983

There's very good reason why those things are free too. Public school is a way to make money off rich people who think their child is getting a better education but it's just as bad, only with better facilities.

>>9348134
>globabl temperature gradient

>>9348149
Oh, sorry I mistyped. I meant "global". Glad I could fix that for you. Do you understand it now?

>>9348056

Science is about proving itself wrong, all theories should be constantly challenged rather than taken as gospel. Science has become a religion in this sense.

>>9348134
>Gaseous and locally obeys equipartition

Big words, must be true.

>>9348177
>Science is about proving itself wrong
You didn't answer my question.
Name a single discipline that you approve of as "science" that doesn't rely on assumptive axioms.

>Big words, must be true.
You can literally google them and find out what they mean.

>>9348188
Science that is observable, testable and repeatable using objects we can define objectively using our own senses.

>>9348159
>mistyped

>>9348111
>What does that mean?
You speak English do you not?

>Nothing of use there.
Lie.

>It's wise to follow the money.
It would be wise to disprove the science or accept it. "Follow the money" is simply a cop out.

>Who told you that?
Who told you it's not observable, testable, and repeatable?

>Ad hominem.
Wrong.

>What physical properties does the atmosphere have?
Temperature, pressure, moisture, etc. Are you really this stupid?

>>9348177
>Science is about proving itself wrong, all theories should be constantly challenged rather than taken as gospel.
It would be nice if you could actually challenge it, instead of just showing your massive ignorance in the subject.

>>9348230
Again you failed to answer my question. I asked for a specific discipline that you approve of. Please try again.
Chemistry, which you dismissed previously, is one of the most observable testable and repeatable sciences that exist. Even though it's all of those things, why did you dismiss it?

Again and again deniers prove themselves to be beyond utterly retarded.

Rather than even touching on the legitimate merit and nitty gritty of unanswered questions in climate sciences, for which there are many they rather embarrass themselves with either pointless or beyond retarded questions like not believing in real numbers, not believing in the concept of temperatures, being so retarded calling Avogrado's number a theoretical construct, and being so fucking obnoxiously retarded that they refuse to believe any experimental measurements that uses any kind of objective instruments
>>9348230
>Science that is observable, testable and repeatable using objects we can define objectively using our own senses.
>we can define objectively using our own senses.
Tell me a single thing that you can measure objectively just using your "senses." Literally nothing. Length of your dick? Need a ruler. Temperature of the room? Need a thermometer. Barometric pressure? Need a pressure gauge. Greenhouse gas concentration? Need a gas chromatograph or laser absorption instrument.

Ironically the deniers here are behaving just like post modern SJW boogeyman that they railed against. Everything is a construct made by science, who need those if I can believe my gut and call other people on anonymous weasel hunting imageboard soyboy. Why bother going to high school, going to college, and getting an education? Why bother learning calculus, linear algebra, differential equation, real analysis, numerical methods, etc they're all theoretical construct by scientists who's actually a cult and try to take muh freedumb away.

>>9347114
>A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself.
the whole point people have been making is that there AREN'T any methods. the poster says they made a comparison, but doesn't say what kind of comparison they were making. l2read

>>9347651
oh boy, it's the "numbers don't real" guy again
>HURR DURR YOU'RE NOT REALLY MEASURING THINGS UNLESS YOU MEASURE EACH PARTICLE INDIVIDUALLY, AGGREGATE MEASURES DON'T COUNT
neck yourself my man

>>9346211
good

>>9348126
There's nothing wrong with that SEMANTIC. So fuck off.

>>9347151
I know, but still.

>>9348236

>You speak English do you not?

What's a "covered" thermometer?

>It would be wise to disprove the science or accept it. "Follow the money" is simply a cop out.

You see, this is the problem. This kind of "science" can only be done by government "scientists", because they are the ones who have access to the technology to even measure this nonsense. This is dogmatic. It means that they can come up with whatever theory they want, and they can back it up with false data. They've been caught doing this before a few years ago (emails got hacked).

>Who told you it's not observable, testable, and repeatable?

Logic. The scientific method cannot be applied to the "climate".

>Temperature, pressure, moisture, etc. Are you really this stupid?

Is the atmosphere different to the air? Because all those properties can be applied to the air. I need a real distinction.

>>9348238

Challenge it with what? My own bullshit graphs? My argument is that this isn't scientific in the first place, there's nothing to challenge.

>>9348239

Chemistry is a mix of true science and bullshit science. You can do experiments that are observable, testable and repeatable, but the moment you try and describe what's going on at a deeper level, it becomes metaphysics, not science.

>>9348386
>Again and again deniers prove themselves to be beyond utterly retarded.

Says you who believes things they cannot prove themselves.

>Tell me a single thing that you can measure objectively just using your "senses." Literally nothing. Length of your dick? Need a ruler. Temperature of the room? Need a thermometer. Barometric pressure? Need a pressure gauge. Greenhouse gas concentration? Need a gas chromatograph or laser absorption instrument.

Ultimately no physical object can be measured objectively in the truest meaning of the word because energy is constantly changing.

But at least we have access to rulers and rudimentary thermometers. I guarantee you don't have access to a satellite (there's no evidence they actually exist for a start, but never mind that for now), but our trusty government does! Science has become your religion and you don't even know it.

>Ironically the deniers here are behaving just like post modern SJW boogeyman that they railed against. Everything is a construct made by science, who need those if I can believe my gut and call other people on anonymous weasel hunting imageboard soyboy. Why bother going to high school, going to college, and getting an education? Why bother learning calculus, linear algebra, differential equation, real analysis, numerical methods, etc they're all theoretical construct by scientists who's actually a cult and try to take muh freedumb away.

Science has been hijacked and used as a tool to control just like everything else.

>>9349850
>>9349866
So you're basically admitting that there is no set of evidence, dataset, or argument that can convince you that climate change is real, or even the concept of climate is real. You dont even believe temperature measurements from satellites and weather stations, despite the network of these stations are run by different organizations (NOAA, HADCru, Berkeley Earth, etc)

That is the definition of being dogmatic

>>9349866
>yfw highschool dropout but too "woke" for calculus and thermometers

>>9349850
>Chemistry is a mix of true science and bullshit science. You can do experiments that are observable, testable and repeatable, but the moment you try and describe what's going on at a deeper level, it becomes metaphysics, not science.
This is the third time you've dodged. You did not answer my question.
What is a specific scientific discipline that you approve of?

>the moment you try and describe what's going on at a deeper level, it becomes metaphysics, not science
This betrays a deep misunderstanding about what science and modelling is. Metaphysics is by definition not testable. Einstein, 100 fucking years ago, produced the theory that predicts gravitational waves. And guess what? We detected them for the first time through LIGO just recently. Metaphysics does not produce testable predictions. General relativity does produce testable predictions. Therefore it is NOT metaphysics.

If you have further questions, I'd recommend taking a philosophy of science course at a local university. They get these types of questions all the time and are better equipped to answer them than I.

>>9349866
>there's no evidence they actually exist for a start,
I can see the ISS from my house.

>>9349905

Give me an objective definition of climate first, without that I cannot accept anything as evidence.

Those are governmental organisations, or funded by government. Berkeley just uses data from other (government) sources, they don't get it themselves.

>>9349914

I've been through the "educational" system.

>>9349929
>What is a specific scientific discipline that you approve of?

I don't consider science as separate disciplines, it can just be applied to different aspects of the physical world.

>We detected them for the first time through LIGO just recently.

Here goes that "we" again. LIGO is funded by the government. Einstein was a revolutionary pseudo-scientist (there's still debate that he even came up with his metaphysical theories in fact).

>I'd recommend taking a philosophy of science course

I don't need a course thank you. Also, science is a type of philosophy that applies to the PHYSICAL world.

>I can see the ISS from my house.

That's cute. Did you know the ISS is orbiting the earth at 17,000MPH? Do you know what the supposed circumference of the earth is? About 24,000 miles? I guess you see it pretty often then...

>>9349985
>it's not science unless you can test its predictions
>wait no, those tested predictions don't count because you need a complicated instrument to test them!
you're literally throwing out all the evidence you don't like in order to support your claim that there isn't evidence. typical denier/proofster; no evidence will ever convince them of anything, because they will always find an excuse to throw out the evidence proving them wrong. pathetic, really.

>>9349985
>That's cute. Did you know the ISS is orbiting the earth at 17,000MPH? Do you know what the supposed circumference of the earth is? About 24,000 miles? I guess you see it pretty often then...
Is this supposed to contradict what I said? The ISS orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes, which is approximately the time predicted by the numbers you gave. I have seen the ISS cross the sky from my house. Did you think I meant that the ISS sits stationary above my house like a star? Fucking lmao

>muh government conspiracy
What evidence do you have that LIGO is lying?

>>9349993

What evidence? Graphs from government organisations? It's not just that the technology is complex and not accessible to most people, it's that it's only accessible to governments.

>>9350002

You can barely see a plane when it's 30,000 feet in the air, but you can see the ISS travelling at 5 miles a second 1.3 million miles up? I don't think so.

>What evidence do you have that LIGO is lying?

There's no scientific evidence first of all. It's in their financial interest to do so. It's also a way to keep people's blind faith in theoretical science strong.

>>9350058
*feet

>>9344845
Idiot, religion is socialist. Sacrificing yourself and others for paradise sounds very very familiar.

>>9347176
Venus is 100 times the density of earths atmosphere
If it was the same density, it would be cooler, not hotter

>>9347176
>>9350132

Where are you getting your data about Venus from again?

>>9347940
there is absolutely no way this is not bait

>>9350241

Not bait at all.

>>9350058
> It's not just that the technology is complex and not accessible to most people, it's that it's only accessible to governments.
The solar Neutrino problem was solved by a dipshit with a tank full of goo and a really big hole. Not affiliated with any government.

>you can see the ISS travelling at 5 miles a second 1.3 million miles up? I don't think so
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/events/stsight.html
The ISS emits light. You see it as a moving dot. Because it's so close to Earth relative to everything else in the night sky, it's usually the brightest (sans the moon) object in the sky.
You can probably find the data online to do the math and prove it to yourself.

>There's no scientific evidence first of all
LIGO's detection data is freely available as far as I'm aware.
>It's in their financial interest to do so
Many of the people working at LIGO are grad students, PhD students, postdocs, and professors, if it was money they were after, they wouldn't be in academia. How much do you think academics make? Laughably little compared to industry.
>blind faith
If you doubt them, you can do most of the experiments that make the backbone of physics with a little money in your back yard.

Face the facts. You have no evidence that the Government is making the scientific community lie to the world. You're taking that as an assumptive axiom, and it's messing with your ability to reason.

>>9350541
>The solar Neutrino problem was solved by a dipshit with a tank full of goo and a really big hole
My mistake, the solar neutrino problem was posed by this guy. who gathered the data to notice a deficit.

>>9350058
>What evidence? Graphs from government organisations? It's not just that the technology is complex and not accessible to most people, it's that it's only accessible to governments.
Most of the top research institutions (e.g. Yale, Harvard, UChicago, MIT) in this country are private organizations. And they own their own instruments. You have a very misinformed idea of what top-level research actually looks like.
Of course, the real point is that you're reflexively throwing out data that you don't like based on your delusional belief that everything's somehow being faked by The Gubbermint.

>>9350058
>What evidence? Graphs from government organisations?
.. you do know there's more than one government in the world, right? And they don't always get along?

>>9344845
wtf i love communists now

>>9350541
>The solar Neutrino problem was solved by a dipshit with a tank full of goo and a really big hole. Not affiliated with any government.

Where'd the dipshit get this idea of a "solar neutrino" problem? What data was he looking at in the first place?

>.gov

Yeah, no thanks.

>The ISS emits light. You see it as a moving dot. Because it's so close to Earth relative to everything else in the night sky, it's usually the brightest (sans the moon) object in the sky.
>You can probably find the data online to do the math and prove it

The ISS emits light does it? It must be an awful lot for you to able to see it at such a distance. Can you show real evidence of that? And why on earth would they waste so much electricity on such a pointless thing. Of course I can get the "data" - can you actually verify it's legitimate instead of blindly believing it is?

>LIGO's detection data is freely available as far as I'm aware.

Yes because you can't make data up...

>Many of the people working at LIGO are grad students, PhD students, postdocs, and professors, if it was money they were after, they wouldn't be in academia. How much do you think academics make? Laughably little compared to industry.

Gaining a PhD is like passing a test to work as a government scientist. You've become indoctrinated enough to believe what you're doing is based in reality rather than metaphysics. Also, who actually made LIGO? It's certainly not the scientists, they just watch the results, they have no idea what's actually going on inside. The people that make this bullshit are the ones that are making the big bucks.

>If you doubt them, you can do most of the experiments that make the backbone of physics with a little money in your back yard.

Show how I can prove atoms exist in my backyard.

>Face the facts. You have no evidence that the Government is making the scientific community lie to the world.

They lie about everything else. Of course they'll lie about it if it benefits them.

>>9351034

They're "private" organistaions all part of the the same academic affiliations such as AAU, IARU, NAICU etc which are based in Washington D.C.

>>9351097

On one level they pretend they don't get along, but at the top level they work together seamlessly. They are absolute geniuses at it, I have to respect it.

>>9352088
If you're so W.O.K.E, why don't you get your own education, PhD, and then do an Edward Snowden, leak the conspiracy emails and prove that everyone is wrong, that satellites are fake, real number are just construct, basic thermometer measurement are wrong, and Avogrado's number is just a mere metaphysics.

Sadly you can't eh? Because you're actually just a sad brainlet who had superiority complex over people, but at first glance of challenge then struggles to do basic Quotient rule in calculus 1, got bitter and call everyone else wrong or being tricked by the gubbermutt.

Here's a tip for you, science is 95% hard work, 3% luck of making correct connections or getting your grants funded, having someone in your field retire just as you enter job market, etc and only 2% actual sheer intelligence. Everyone can do the 95% part if they really try.

>>9346194
>Snopes

>>9352196
>your own education, PhD

That's oxymoronic.

Who the fuck's going to listen anyway? I don't need to leak anything, you only need to use your own brain instead of letting it be used for you.

>Because you're actually just a sad brainlet who had superiority complex over people

Anyone who uses the 'brainlet' term has a superiority complex. I don't think I'm very smart at all (if that can even be measured objectively), I just still have the freedom to think for myself which is what is taken from you since an early age.

>struggles to do basic Quotient rule in calculus 1

Most people struggle with this bullshit, because it's useless bullshit that you pretend you're interested in so as not to appear like a "brainlet".

>Here's a tip for you, science is 95% hard work, 3% luck of making correct connections or getting your grants funded, having someone in your field retire just as you enter job market, etc and only 2% actual sheer intelligence. Everyone can do the 95% part if they really try.

It's just memorising and regurgitating other people's bullshit. Who funds those grants again? Oh yeah...

>>9352088
>Gaining a PhD is like passing a test to work as a government scientist. You've become indoctrinated enough to believe what you're doing is based in reality rather than metaphysics.
So do you have any experience with PhD programs? Or are you just going off of "they disagree with my delusions, so they must be wrong"?

>>9352122
>They're "private" organistaions all part of the the same academic affiliations such as AAU, IARU, NAICU etc which are based in Washington D.C.
What's with the scare quotes around "private"?
And is your argument really that private research institutions can't be trusted because they are part of a club that meets in the same city as the government? Holy hell that's autismal.

>>9352255
>I don't think I'm very smart at all
finally we agree
>I just still have the freedom to think for myself
meaning that you trust your delusions rather than the evidence of your own eyes and ears.

Congratulations, conspiratorial shitposter: you do not exist.
The only evidence for your existence is your alleged posts made on the internet, which as we all know was developed by the government. Since we can't trust that, and I can't prove your existence in my backyard without powerful instrumentation unavailable to the layman, you must be a metaphysical hoax. In light of this stunning revelation, please fuck all the way off.

>>9352431
>So do you have any experience with PhD programs? Or are you just going off of "they disagree with my delusions, so they must be wrong"?

Not personally (I got lucky), but I know people that have.

If you don't have a "PhD" then you won't be taken as seriously as someone with one. If you are the organisation that's handing out PhD's then you control who can be taken seriously, and who can't. People will immediately believe what a PhD says because they have one, but this is utterly fallacious (argument from authority).

>What's with the scare quotes around "private"?
>And is your argument really that private research institutions can't be trusted because they are part of a club that meets in the same city as the government? Holy hell that's autismal.

You seriously think they don't work together? Universities are tax exempt for a start, and they owe something for that.

>The only evidence for your existence is your alleged posts made on the internet, which as we all know was developed by the government.

Government institutions developed the framework for the internet, but they didn't create what we see today. You can now see how they're trying to control it as much as they can (using ISPs) with all this net neutrality going on.
>meaning that you trust your delusions rather than the evidence of your own eyes and ears.

I'd rather trust my own "delusions" rather than other people's that have been forced down my neck.

>>9347842
>can't have capitalism forever
Woah this really makes me think

>>9347940
>no one knows what temperature is
Quality bait

>>9352088
>Where'd the dipshit get this idea of a "solar neutrino" problem? What data was he looking at in the first place?
His experiment which he did in his back yard detected only 1/3rd of the neutrinos that the models at the time predicted.
>It must be an awful lot for you to able to see it at such a distance.
Do the math yourself. Look up the sensitivity of the human eye and figure out how much light the ISS would have to emit to be visible.
> Also, who actually made LIGO? It's certainly not the scientists
Wrong. The scientists worked very close with the Engineers (who are also scientists) to build LIGO. They constantly check the tunnels themselves.
>Show how I can prove atoms exist in my backyard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment You can find evidence perfectly consistent with the atomic model with this experiment.

You can also verify part of Einstein's general relativity by looking at stars near the sun in the sky on a solar eclipse.

>They lie about everything else.
This is not even remotely true. Here's my evidence that science isn't some massive hoax. There are literally millions of people involved. If it was a hoax, one of them would eventually pull a Snowden with irrefutable proof that all of science is wrong and has been for the past 200 years. This has clearly not happened. In order to refute this, you need actual evidence that science is all a lie, which you cannot provide because that evidence doesn't exist.
How the fuck are all of the governments in the world collaborating on fooling the world through science? They can't agree on fucking anything. Is the US gov't pulling the strings on Russian particle physics? Pulling the strings on Switzerland, a neutral country for over a hundred years? You have no evidence to support your claims.

If you're not going to be even remotely scientific, get the fuck off of the board

>>9347940
>Why would I want to calculate theoretical constructs
Top kek

>>9352543
>Not personally (I got lucky), but I know people that have.
>If you don't have a "PhD" then you won't be taken as seriously as someone with one. If you are the organisation that's handing out PhD's then you control who can be taken seriously, and who can't. People will immediately believe what a PhD says because they have one, but this is utterly fallacious (argument from authority).
If you haven't personally earned a PhD, how do you know what doctoral programs are like?
>I know people that have.
So you're trusting their accounts of academia, huh? Sounds like you're taking them seriously literally because...wait for it...they have PhDs.

>>9346221

The only thing you're showing here
>>9341261 →
is a logrithmic curve which no one disputes. That still doesn't contradict the diminishing returns argument. The curve itself shows that to make the same change which happened from 200 ppm to 400 ppm you'd have to go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm! Extremely unlikely we'll ever hit 800 ppm.

>>9352740
>This is not even remotely true. Here's my evidence that science isn't some massive hoax.

Nice false choice. Either Climate change is true, or there's a big conspiracy.
As if scientific theories have never been wrong before.

>>9353432
There's just no point arguing with you. Enjoy living your life believing that all of humanity's science is a lie (that for some reason no one falsifies even though it's all made up). I hope you find a way to contribute to humanity

>>9353430
>is a logrithmic curve which no one disputes.
Yes, climatologists already know this. So what's your point?

>That still doesn't contradict the diminishing returns argument.
An argument for what exactly? That AGW isn't bad because it has diminishing returns? The diminishing returns themselves are bad, so this doesn't respond to what climatologists are saying. Also. GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially, leading to a linear warming trend.

>>9353430
>The curve itself shows that to make the same change which happened from 200 ppm to 400 ppm you'd have to go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm! Extremely unlikely we'll ever hit 800 ppm.
The issue here is that the total warming isn't directly proportional to the forcing from increased CO2 alone. There are a variety of feedbacks (from melting ice to ocean acidification to changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation) that become significant once warming reaches a certain point, causing much more warming to result. If you'll pardon my metaphor, you don't need to shake a mountain to cause an avalanche, if there's enough snow already on it.

>>9353432
>Nice false choice. Either Climate change is true, or there's a big conspiracy.
>As if scientific theories have never been wrong before.
given the current evidence, mainstream theories of climate change being wrong is INCREDIBLY unlikely, on par with the odds that evolution by natural selection isn't real.
when all the evidence points in one direction, we follow it. we don't go around saying that gravity doesn't real just because "hurr durr scientists were wrong before".

>>9353432
>Spend entire thread claiming climate change is a lie because science is all a government hoax
>Complains that this is a false choice

>>9352722

Temperature can be felt by us and measured in rudimentary ways, but it can never be objective. Machines do not "feel" temperature, they are highly constrained by their programming and hardware. You can make them "read" whatever you want if you build/program it.

>>9352740

>His experiment which he did in his back yard detected only 1/3rd of the neutrinos that the models at the time predicted.

If it's so easy you've done it too, correct?

>Do the math yourself. Look up the sensitivity of the human eye and figure out how much light the ISS would have to emit to be visible.

Sensitivity is not the same as distance, once something is far enough away you won't see it. Just watch a plane fly past at night, it will disappear pretty quickly and they are far closer to us than the ISS supposedly is. Use some common sense.

>Wrong. The scientists worked very close with the Engineers (who are also scientists) to build LIGO.

Which "scientists"?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

No one's doing that bullshit in their backyard. That "experiment" is absurd, how they can conclude what they did from it is a complete joke.

>This is not even remotely true. Here's my evidence that science isn't some massive hoax. There are literally millions of people involved. If it was a hoax, one of them would eventually pull a Snowden with irrefutable...

Millions of people have been fooled by religion, of course millions of people can be fooled by science (that is theoretical). Governments at the highest levels work together.

>>9352904

>If you haven't personally earned a PhD, how do you know what doctoral programs are like?

Because they're just another hoop on the same path of indoctrination.

>So you're trusting their accounts of academia, huh? Sounds like you're taking them seriously literally because...wait for it...they have PhDs.

They tell me it's extremely stressful. It's an unhealthy way of "learning".

>>9354336
What the fuck.

>>9354336
>Because they're just another hoop on the same path of indoctrination.
uh huh. sounds like you just decided what you were going to think without actually basing it on reality.
>They tell me it's extremely stressful. It's an unhealthy way of "learning".
One, if your limits aren't being tested, they're not being expanded, you babby. Two, HOW can you know your friends are telling you the truth?

In case you're too monumentally stupid to understand the point I'm making, I'll simplify it for you:
You say that science isn't real since scientists tell people to trust their accounts of experiments that cannot be experienced firsthand by the general public. But you admit that you base everything you know of academia on secondhand accounts, and insist that those accounts are unimpeachable. Your stubborn insistence that It's All A Conspiracy is entirely untainted by the evidence you find so repulsive.

Here's a good question: what would it take to prove to you that the earth is round?

>>9354336
We're reaching levels of retardation that no one thought possible!

>>9354372

Not an argument.

>>9354385

>uh huh. sounds like you just decided what you were going to think without actually basing it on reality.

Educational establishments are not educational, they are there to maintain the status quo. You wouldn't be able to do a PhD without going through the previous hoops of indoctrination.

>One, if your limits aren't being tested, they're not being expanded, you babby. Two, HOW can you know your friends are telling you the truth?

Your limits of what? Limit of bullshit? I don't see the benefit of my friends to lie about the intensity of their PhDs, I think it's pretty well known they can be very stressful.

>>9354385
>In case you're too monumentally stupid to understand the point I'm making, I'll simplify it for you:
>You say that science isn't real since scientists tell people to trust their accounts of experiments that cannot be experienced firsthand by the general public. But you admit that you base everything you know of academia on secondhand accounts, and insist that those accounts are unimpeachable. Your stubborn insistence that It's All A Conspiracy is entirely untainted by the evidence you find so repulsive.

It's not just that the public can't experience them first hand, neither can the scientists, so they have to use mathematical equations which violate the scientific method. It's not science at that point, it's metaphysics.

>Here's a good question: what would it take to prove to you that the earth is round?

Either to go up in "space" high enough that I could see it rotating, as well as the ability to orbit it all the way around.

>>9354479
>flat earther
Oh wow, now the absolute inability for you to think logically or comprehend scientific evidence is clear. Why are you on /sci/ of all places of you hold such moronic, anti-scientific beliefs? /pol/ suits your level of mental handicap a little better.

>>9354495

My beliefs are not anti-science, they're anti-pseudoscience.

The heliocentric model is like a parody of pseudo-science. Earth is spinning 1000mph, while orbiting the sun at 60,000+mph, and the sun is orbiting the galaxy at 500,000+mph.

Then you use actual observation and look at the stars, there is zero evidence of these convoluted movements happening. "Oh it's because they're really far away that we don't notice the movements" - the parallax argument can only apply to objects moving from side to side in parallel directions, the heliocentric model has vastly more movements happening at the same time than that.

Can you show me a picture of the globe earth that isn't CGI?

>>9354522
Thanks for proving my point at what an absolute fucking retard you are. Eristothenes figured out the Earth's shape over 2200 years ago simply using shadows, yet brainlets like you today with every resource available to them, with bountiful amounts of scientific evidence, willfully choose to be ridiculed and laughed at, you're pathetic, your entire line of reasoning is pathetic, and you need to get the fuck off this board and go back whence you came. You have contributed not a single line of intelligent discussion thus far and simply need to fuck off. If you honestly believe any of the tripe you type out, I truly feel pity for you. Just a complete brainlet without the ounce of skepticism towards your own cognitive biases that aren't based in any rationality or logic. Just pure, stupid insanity, and you believe you're the rational one, that's how delusional you are.

>>9354522
https://youtu.be/RtU_mdL2vBM

>>9354535
FAKE NASA CGI YOU FUCKING DEEP STATE FBI PLANT! I'M NEVER GONNA BELIEVE (((NASA))) JEW LIES YOU FILTHY FUCKING KIKE SHILL LEFTIST LIBERAL!

>>9354539
Compare the clouds, it's live, not CGI.

>>9354544
I'm not him, was just making a joke about what people will use to excuse scientific evidence that they're wrong. This is pretty much the logic and rationality of a flat earther.

>>9354479
>so they have to use mathematical equations which violate the scientific method.
Name a single mathematical equations that violate the scientific method, unless you're saying that scientific method is testable and complicated equations are not because you're too dumb to do it yourself

>>9354535

They're about as high as a weather balloon can go. Why aren't they showing a full shot of the earth? I thought the ISS was orbiting the earth at 17,000 mph? So in an about hour or so they should have done one full orbit, correct?

The clouds give the illusion that the earth is rotating, but the clouds move by themselves.

>>9354565
Whatever, keep on using those olympic-medal winning mental gymnastics to avoid the evidence and keep your biases confirmed, whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>9354479
>Educational establishments are not educational, they are there to maintain the status quo. You wouldn't be able to do a PhD without going through the previous hoops of indoctrination.
Not an argument. I pointed out that you were (hypocritically) basing your views on secondhand information (or no evidence at all, in places) and your response was to repeat those views. Truth by repetition isn't a thing.
>Your limits of what? Limit of bullshit?
Limits of ability to do actual work, you pathetic NEET. It takes actual effort to put together a functional methodology and actually do the legwork, to say nothing of the analysis that follows.

>It's not just that the public can't experience them first hand, neither can the scientists
I'm an invertebrate paleontologist. I experience my specimens firsthand. The trouble with just making shit up is that it's painfully obvious to the people who actually do research that you're, well, just making shit up.
>mathematical equations which violate the scientific method
Name a single equation that violates the scientific method.

>>9354522
>the parallax argument can only apply to objects moving from side to side in parallel directions
I Don't Understand Basic Geometry: The Post

>>9354565
>Why aren't they showing a full shot of the earth?
Because the ISS orbits the earth at a height of 254 miles or so. If you do the math (again, this is 8th/9th grade geometry) you find that the Earth spans ~140° from the ISS. To view that, you'd need a super-wide-angle fisheye lens, which would introduce a lot of distortion and make the image look like shit.
Oh wait, I just used a mathematical equation. That's anti-science, right? :^)

>>9354535

Funny how when you can't see the earth properly any more like in the pic, suddenly the earth looks completely different and there's land showing instead of clouds as if they magically sped up.

>>9354595
Your seeing only what you want to see in your deluded mind.

>>9354595
>image quality is better in some stills than in others from a livestream
>must all be fake!
this is how flatheads behave. they demand evidence, and then when they're shown evidence they declare it fake based on their own preconceived opinions.

>>9354590

>Not an argument. I pointed out that you were (hypocritically) basing your views on secondhand information (or no evidence at all, in places) and your response was to repeat those views. Truth by repetition isn't a thing.

I fail to see how that's an equal comparison. An opinion about acquiring a PhD doesn't require scientific evidence. Science is about trying to find the opposite of opinion using the scientific method, which theoretical science doesn't do.

>Limits of ability to do actual work, you pathetic NEET. It takes actual effort to put together a functional methodology and actually do the legwork, to say nothing of the analysis that follows.

It takes a lot of effort swimming in other people's bullshit, as well as creating you're own. I'm not saying people are doing this deliberately, it's just they have no other option.

>I'm an invertebrate paleontologist. I experience my specimens firsthand. The trouble with just making shit up is that it's painfully obvious to the people who actually do research that you're, well, just making shit up.

You experience a physical object first hand, but beyond that it's just using other people's ideas to analyse such things.

>Name a single equation that violates the scientific method.

All of them because they're not physical objects.

>I Don't Understand Basic Geometry: The Post

Not an argument.

>Because the ISS orbits the earth at a height of 254 miles or so. If you do the math (again, this is 8th/9th grade geometry) you find that the Earth spans ~140° from the ISS. To view that, you'd need a super-wide-angle fisheye lens, which would introduce a lot of distortion and make the image look like shit.
>Oh wait, I just used a mathematical equation. That's anti-science, right? :^)

Funny you mention fish eyed lens, pic attached shows deliberate warping to make the earth appear more curved/spherical.

>>9354903
Please, just stop, you're only embarrassing yourself further every time you post.

>>9354909

That's your own defense mechanism.

Can you see why they're covering the left half of the "globe" up? Because they're fucking with it but don't want to make it too obvious.

Believe NASA if you want, it was created by a Nazi though (Wernher von Braun, look it up).

>>9354934
You very clearly have some type of aspergers / autism if you un-ironically believe the tripe you post. Please, kindly fuck off back to >>>/x/ where the plebeians there will indulge your autismal fantasies. Again, you're seeing only what you want to see to confirm your biases, stop being such a sperg for just one moment, step back and realize how absolutely insane the things you spout are. You don't have to be this way, it's a choice to believe in this delusional fantasy world you live in.

>>9354944
The only thing more retarded then being a retard, is arguing with retards about retarded shit.

>>9354944

I thought autists were supposed to love science/math?

I used to think like you. I thought flat earth was ridiculous when I heard it and I mocked it instantly. Look at the evidence for both sides and make your own conclusion. I see you conveniently ignore the screen shots.

>Thread about global warming turns into autistic ramblings about flat earth

now it all makes sense, all of these threads, started almost daily here on /sci/ by the same flat earth faggot just to pointlessly argue

>>9354903
>An opinion about acquiring a PhD doesn't require scientific evidence.
Ah, so you admit that your claims aren't actually based in any sort of evidence.
>It takes a lot of effort swimming in other people's bullshit, as well as creating you're own.
Again, you know this how? You keep making bold proclamations about things that, by your own admission, you have no firsthand knowledge of.
>You experience a physical object first hand, but beyond that it's just using other people's ideas to analyse such things.
So is your beef with recorded knowledge itself, then? I knew your lot was ignorant, but you are literally arguing against the existence of books.
>All of them because they're not physical objects.
"1+1=2 is anti-science!"
--(You)
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.
>pic attached shows deliberate warping to make the earth appear more curved/spherical
...you're surprised that heavily foreshortened objects near the camera, especially those towards the side of its FOV, are distorted? you can test this yourself with a camera and a stick in your own back yard.

Every time you post, it can be summed up as "I don't know anything about what I'm talking about, and I refuse to find out!"

>>9354961
>Look at the evidence for both sides and make your own conclusion.
this from the guy saying that we can't trust the evidence out there because we personally didn't gather it ourselves.
>I thought autists were supposed to love science/math?
some of us do. I dunno about you; maybe you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are and so your obsessive focus turned into willfully ignorant mythomania, or maybe you weren't properly challenged in school. either way, you've unfortunately gone to a place that is hard to return from: rejection of actual evidence in favor of a pseudo-profound ethos of "we can't really know anything (except what I say is true)"

>>9354934
>I don't fucking know what a shadow is: the post

>>9354961
>Flat earth
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""evidence""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

L E L

>I used to think like you
Yet in an effort to make yourself feel "superior" to everyone else with your illogical mind, you managed to step completely backwards into a realm of pseudoscience and quackery. All you have done is trick your brain into believing you're correct about irrefutable scientific facts.

>>9354969
>Ah, so you admit that your claims aren't actually based in any sort of evidence.

PhDs are stress free? Education is stress free? Education is designed to make you stressed about passing tests rather than actually learning anything.

>Again, you know this how? You keep making bold proclamations about things that, by your own admission, you have no firsthand knowledge of.

The further from the truth you stray, the harder and more complicated things become.

>So is your beef with recorded knowledge itself, then? I knew your lot was ignorant, but you are literally arguing against the existence of books.

Why does something being a book make it automatically true? When you are "taught" something, the question you have to ask is who benefits from me believing this? Especially if it's something you cannot prove yourself.

>"1+1=2 is anti-science!"

That's mathematics.

>...you're surprised that heavily foreshortened objects near the camera, especially those towards the side of its FOV, are distorted? you can test this yourself with a camera and a stick in your own back yard.

Yes, especially when they curve in the same way the earth does. Cameras don't have to do that.

>this from the guy saying that we can't trust the evidence out there because we personally didn't gather it ourselves.

Well you actually can gather the evidence for yourself. The horizon always stays at eye level no matter how high you go (impossible on a sphere). When a ship looks to go over the horizon you can zoom in and it appears fully again. Water always finds its level (impossible on a sphere).

>>9354972
>some of us do. I dunno about you; maybe you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are and so your obsessive focus turned into willfully ignorant mythomania, or maybe you weren't properly challenged in school. either way, you've unfortunately gone to a place that is hard to return from: rejection of actual evidence in favor of a pseudo-profound ethos of "we can't really know anything (except what I say is true)"

But you believe things because people ("scientists/professors") say it's true. I'm saying don't blindly believe what people teach. The problem is you have to otherwise you won't pass.

>I don't fucking know what a shadow is: the post

I guess I don't know what shadows are if you think that's a shadow.

>>9355004

If I'm trying to feel superior then I'd insult people as I have been in this thread. The only thing that's superior is the truth.

>>9344772
G00d Bait

>>9355054
>Education is designed to make you stressed about passing tests rather than actually learning anything.
Wrong. Education is designed to stress-test your ability to learn. There's a very big difference.
And of course there's still the fact that you admitted your claims are unrooted in any evidence. You're GUESSING BLINDLY at what things really are like, which is why you're so badly mistaken all the time.
>The further from the truth you stray, the harder and more complicated things become.
A meaningless platitude, and false into the bargain. People believe great lies because they are comforting and easy to understand. The truth is frequently harsh, complicated, and counterintuitive. This is why Creationism remains sadly popular in America; it is easier psychologically to believe that a benevolent supernatural force "just made everything" than to understand that the world comes from uncertain origins, cares little for us, and took unimaginable amounts of time to reach its current everyday complexity.
>Why does something being a book make it automatically true?
I never said it does. You, however, take it to the other extreme; getting information out of books is AUTOMATICALLY suspect. Rather than making any sort of critical assessment of a record or document, you insist that it MUST be a conspiracy to fool you.
>That's mathematics.
You are on the record claiming that all equations are anti-science. You are now claiming that mathematics itself is anti-science.
that's all anyone really needs to know about your dumb ass.

Daily reminder that climate sensitivity has ridiculous error margins, even when going strictly by IPCC. Numbers I've personally seen range from 0.5-7C which is even more laughable for a "settled science".

Daily reminder that climate "science" barely uses scientific methods and has to rely on economics and psychology tier statistical models.

Daily reminder that climate "science" is by far the most politicized area of research.

Daily reminder that all scientific disciplines, but especially aforementioned two, produce a significant percent of junk studies where various statistical tricks and even raw data manipulation is used to produce publishable significant results out of necessity to secure stable funding from politicians.

Daily reminder that those things literally never happen in climate science and that you're a bigot and a racist if you ever question that.

>>9354903
>>Name a single equation that violates the scientific method.
>All of them because they're not physical objects.

So you think Newton's 2nd law, F = m*a is not science?

>>9355054
>especially when they curve in the same way the earth does
the earth's outline is far more curved in that image than the edge of the solar panel is. if you understood the most fundamental plane geometry, you could measure that yourself.
also, are you saying that the outline in that image is actually the edge of the (flat) earth, distorted to look rounder than it is? because that's the Gulf of California visible in that image. are you claiming that eastern Mexico doesn't really exist?

>>9355088
>I'm saying don't blindly believe what people teach.
This may come as a surprise to a NEET like you, but we actually learn critical thinking skills and constantly challenge our ideas based on the evidence. (That's different from just rejecting all evidence like you advocate.) When I tell you that trilobites had biramous walking/swimming limbs along with antennae and cerci, and that their mouth was covered by their hypostome, it is because I have seen the pyritized specimens showing this to be the case.
>I guess I don't know what shadows are
of course you don't. take a ball and a small flashlight into a darkened room and hold them in front of you. shine the flashlight on the side of the ball. you will clearly see the same shadow pattern on the opposite side of the ball.

your claim that that side of the image is fake doesn't even make sense in light of itself! if (((they))) could fake images with such realism, WHY wouldn't they just fake BOTH SIDES? you believe that there is a massive conspiracy to deceive everyone that also just happens to leave obvious clues for you. are we ruled by cartoon villains now?

>>9355116
>Daily reminder that climate sensitivity has ridiculous error margins, even when going strictly by IPCC. Numbers I've personally seen range from 0.5-7C which is even more laughable for a "settled science".
This is a lie, the latest range from the IPCC is 1.5 to 4.5°C.

>Daily reminder that climate "science" barely uses scientific methods and has to rely on economics and psychology tier statistical models.
Lie.

>Daily reminder that climate "science" is by far the most politicized area of research.
If by "politicized" you mean that people deny it for political reasons, then yes.

>Daily reminder that all scientific disciplines, but especially aforementioned two, produce a significant percent of junk studies where various statistical tricks and even raw data manipulation is used to produce publishable significant results out of necessity to secure stable funding from politicians.
So which climate studies do this? And what is the consensus of high quality studies?

>>9355114

>Wrong. Education is designed to stress-test your ability to learn. There's a very big difference.

Stress test your ability to memorize and regurgitate bullshit.

>And of course there's still the fact that you admitted your claims are unrooted in any evidence. You're GUESSING BLINDLY at what things really are like, which is why you're so badly mistaken all the time.

It's the opposite of being blind, you have to factor in everything before making conclusions, especially what humans are capable of, and their motivations for doing so.

>A meaningless platitude, and false into the bargain. People believe great lies because they are comforting and easy to understand. The truth is frequently harsh, complicated, and counterintuitive. This is why Creationism remains sadly popular in America; it is easier psychologically to believe that a benevolent supernatural force "just made everything" than to understand that the world comes from uncertain origins, cares little for us, and took unimaginable amounts of time to reach its current everyday complexity.

Religion is simple in terms of how things were created, but science is too (big bang), neither are correct in my opinion because the truth is simpler than that. Religion is not simple in other ways however, it's designed to make you feel inferior to God, and there are many dumb stories to prove it. Science isn't any different with its many convoluted theories to make you feel like a worthless robot.

>I never said it does. You, however, take it to the other extreme; getting information out of books is AUTOMATICALLY suspect. Rather than making any sort of critical assessment of a record or document, you insist that it MUST be a conspiracy to fool you.

The books you are forced to read at school/university are certainly suspect. It's always worth researching the authors and what connections they have.

>You are on the record claiming that all equations are anti-science.

I'm saying equations aren't science.

>>9355201
>Stress test your ability to memorize and regurgitate bullshit.
in middle school, maybe. those of us who pursue higher education move beyond this. if you had actually gone to college, or even finished high school, you'd understand this.
>It's the opposite of being blind, you have to factor in everything before making conclusions
then why are you putting absolute faith in what others tell you about subjects that you, by your own admission, have no actual experience with?
>Big Bang is simple
to people who have no idea what it is, sure.
>neither are correct in my opinion
your opinion is worthless on this matter, since it's derived from delusional conjecture rather than evidence.
>The books you are forced to read at school/university are certainly suspect.
Please tell my why "How to Build a Habitable Planet", by Stephen Langmuir and Wally Broecker, is suspect. Why should I automatically distrust the authors?
>I'm saying equations aren't science.
you said that ALL equations violate the Scientific Method. you said that using math as part of science makes it nonscientific.

this is about the level of delusional idiocy I expect of someone who think that numbers don't real.

>>9355151
>This is a lie, the latest range from the IPCC is 1.5 to 4.5°C.
Yes, that's the closest we have, 8-fold difference, ranging from barely anything to huge issues. And that's the current estimate from the organization that picks the studies and tries its best to prove CC is real. Again, those naughty ones range from 0.5 to "a retard can see that's false" high.

>Lie.
Please do show me all the replicability and all the theories that are regularly discarded (not "adjusted", "muh imprecise models", "we are 100% this is true, we just have to find proof because last one failed") due to false predictions. It's easy for cs to be always right when all the times they were wrong are "oopsies, well it's totes rite this time xD". CS lacks the two most basic tenants of scientific method per Popper, fucker is spinning in his grave enough to provide infinite power, it's as scientific as economics - do voodoo numerology until numbers confirm your beliefs and adjust accordingly.

>If by "politicized" you mean that people deny it for political reasons, then yes.
Or base their entire political ideology and proliferation on it being true and catastrophical.

>So which climate studies do this? And what is the consensus of high quality studies?
None of course, only a bigot who's asking to be ostracized and has his academic career ruined would doubt them :^) you aren't a dirty nazi right anon? Those calling any studies into question aren't a real climatologists anyways, otherwise they'd agree with us blindly.

Climate science is fucking modern day astrology.

>>9355119

No, it's mathematics/metaphysics.

>>9355135

The solar panels shouldn't be curved at all unless a fish eye/digital editing is being used. They are nearly identical to the "curvature" of the earth.

>This may come as a surprise to a NEET like you, but we actually learn critical thinking skills and constantly challenge our ideas based on the evidence. (That's different from just rejecting all evidence like you advocate.) When I tell you that trilobites had biramous walking/swimming limbs along with antennae and cerci, and that their mouth was covered by their hypostome, it is because I have seen the pyritized specimens showing this to be the case.

How much do you really challenge though? Do you challenge that atoms exist? If not, how do you know they exist?

>of course you don't. take a ball and a small flashlight into a darkened room and hold them in front of you. shine the flashlight on the side of the ball. you will clearly see the same shadow pattern on the opposite side of the ball.

Do shadows also distort the shape of the earth? And what's casting such a huge shadow? That screen shot was taken while the "astronaut" was turning the camera around to face him, but the "shadow" disappeared when the camera faced earth again shortly after.

>your claim that that side of the image is fake doesn't even make sense in light of itself! if (((they))) could fake images with such realism, WHY wouldn't they just fake BOTH SIDES? you believe that there is a massive conspiracy to deceive everyone that also just happens to leave obvious clues for you. are we ruled by cartoon villains now?

That's a good question, why don't they show both sides? Trying to hide something it seems.

>>9355243
>Yes, that's the closest we have, 8-fold difference, ranging from barely anything to huge issues.
No, it's not an "8-fold difference." It's highly unlikely that climate sensitivity is outside of 1.5-4.5°C, that's the entire point of having an uncertainty range.

>Please do show me all the replicability and all the theories that are regularly discarded (not "adjusted", "muh imprecise models", "we are 100% this is true, we just have to find proof because last one failed") due to false predictions.
That's how science works, moron. There is no field of science that doesn't have falsified theories. The question is how accurate our understanding is currently, and it is accurate enough to successfully predict global surface temperature for decades: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

You fundamentally don't understand Popper even though you namedrop him.

>Or base their entire political ideology and proliferation on it being true and catastrophical.
It being true is based on the massive amount of scientific evidence for it, try again.

>None of course, only a bigot who's asking to be ostracized and has his academic career ruined would doubt them
Ah so you have no evidence of your claims of fraud and manipulation in climatology. Thank you for admitting you were lying.

>>9355240
>in middle school, maybe. those of us who pursue higher education move beyond this. if you had actually gone to college, or even finished high school, you'd understand this.

It gets worse the higher you go.

>then why are you putting absolute faith in what others tell you about subjects that you, by your own admission, have no actual experience with?

I look at all the evidence before forming my own conclusion. Again, it's important to ask who benefits from believing what they say.

>to people who have no idea what it is, sure.

It comes down to an explosion creating everything.

>Please tell my why "How to Build a Habitable Planet", by Stephen Langmuir and Wally Broecker, is suspect. Why should I automatically distrust the authors?

Can't find much on Stephen, but Wally is part of many "fellowships" and has been awarded the 'National Medal of Science' which is awarded by the President. You only get that if you've helped the government out. Look at the medal attached, it's a man who has a physical object in one hand, but is writing an equation (in sand) with the other in a subservient manner. He's also looking at the equation rather than the physical object.

>you said that ALL equations violate the Scientific Method. you said that using math as part of science makes it nonscientific.

The scientific method cannot be applied to equations, equations don't have any physical properties.

>>9355240
Just stop responding to him, he's schizophrenic.

>>9355353

What a cop out.

>>9355299
>tfw 4chins thinks my post is spam

pastebin.com/0g3Lf5fQ

I'm interested in your response to the last part.

>>9355255
>The solar panels shouldn't be curved at all unless a fish eye/digital editing is being used
if you go do that experiment with a stick, you'll see this is false. when you've got an extremely foreshortened object towards the sides of the FOV, you get that effect.
>Do you challenge that atoms exist?
You can experimentally confirm the existence of atoms with a glass of water, some salt, and a sunny windowsill. Bonus points for using a voltmeter as well.
>Do shadows also distort the shape of the earth?
Yes, you dickhead. The far edge of the earth is in deep shadow, so you can't SEE it, so it looks like a sliver has been lopped off of it in the photo. Are you three years old?
>why don't they show both sides?
answered >>9354590 you dickhead

>>9355387
not that guy but:
>I can't imagine that there's no fraud in climate science, therefore there must be fraud
argument from incredulity is absolute shit and you know it

>>9355387
>Tf are you talking about, do you realize that it grows exponentially, not linearly?
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about the uncertainty range in climate sensitivity.

>t. IPCC
t. the scientific evidence

>That's how astrology works too, buddy, just ignore whatever doesn't fit and pick the winners.
That would be results, not theories, you moron. Only the theories that produce correct results and no incorrect results remain. But thank you for showing you have no idea what Popper was advocating.

>It's shit you dense fuck, it's nowhere near to having a predictive power.
Then how have we been successfully predicting surface temps for decades? Because you're full of shit, that's why.

>I want bitcoin to grow. I can literally cherry pick enough faggots from Twitter to get enough uncertainty to prove me right in a year. Multiply that by thousands and I bet you'll find one that fits the bill perfectly.
These are all the standard models of the IPCC, they aren't cherrypicked. You are such a pathetic failure.

>>no argument against replicability or predictive power
Go back to school and learn how to read.

>Seriously, all 4chan memes aside, do you seriously believe that academic fraud that's prevalent in every science discipline that can't be outright proven wrong (ie maths and maybe theoretical physics) is absent in cs?
What academic fraud??? You simply assume it exists because you want it to exist. Admit it, you lied.

>Given the state of how grants are given out, do you really believe that no fudging happens in the most politically polarizing science ever? Nothing ever gets a bit fudged to further the perceived truth and also to get news and grant worthy, thus published?
So now you've moved the goalposts from "climate science is wrong because it has a significant amount of junk studies" to "it must have happened at least once." Problem is, you can't even provide an example of it happening even once, liar.

>>9355387
Daily reminder that all dogmatic climate change deniers eventually fall back on lying to support their argument.

>>9355428
>if you go do that experiment with a stick, you'll see this is false. when you've got an extremely foreshortened object towards the sides of the FOV, you get that effect.

The effect is only as dramatic as that with a fish eyed lens.

>You can experimentally confirm the existence of atoms with a glass of water, some salt, and a sunny windowsill. Bonus points for using a voltmeter as well.

Is that all it takes to convince you?

>Yes, you dickhead. The far edge of the earth is in deep shadow, so you can't SEE it, so it looks like a sliver has been lopped off of it in the photo. Are you three years old?

What's casting the "shadow"? And why is the earth pointed?

>answered >>9354590 you dickhead

They can't see all of earth? They can certainly see more than they're showing can't they? Just as the attached pic shows. Looks like a fish eye lens doesn't it...

>>9355481
>Is that all it takes to convince you?
Simple observations can be quite useful if you have a knowledge-base to put them in context. For instance, if someone hit their head yesterday and today they have big bruises under their ears, I know they have a basilar skull fracture. That's all it takes to convince me, because that's all it takes to know.
>What's casting the "shadow"? And why is the earth pointed?
The earth, and it's not.
Just do the experiment I described to you, it's simpler than trying to dumb this down to a level you'll understand.

>>9355481
>They can't see all of earth? They can certainly see more than they're showing can't they? Just as the attached pic shows. Looks like a fish eye lens doesn't it...
>Why does an image produced with a wide-angle lens look like it was produced with a wide-angle lens?
God help us all.

>>9355563
>Simple observations can be quite useful if you have a knowledge-base to put them in context. For instance, if someone hit their head yesterday and today they have big bruises under their ears, I know they have a basilar skull fracture. That's all it takes to convince me, because that's all it takes to know.

The difference is that skulls and bruising aren't theoretical, whereas atoms are.

>The earth, and it's not.
>Just do the experiment I described to you, it's simpler than trying to dumb this down to a level you'll understand.

The experiment doesn't prove anything about theoretical atoms, just how those physical materials involved in the experiment react under those conditions, "atoms" don't have to have anything to do with it.

>>9355719

>Why does an image produced with a wide-angle lens look like it was produced with a wide-angle lens?

Why would they use a wide-angled or fish-eyed lens in the first place? To distort the image? NASA have much to gain by lying to you, and they can get away with doing it badly because you just can't fathom they'd have any ulterior motive.

There's one experiment that I know that fairly well can demonstrate some of the effects of Carbon Dioxide that are understood well by the layman. Take the exercise of blowing bubbles into water, and measuring the change in pH. As you blow more carbon dioxide into the water, the pH is lowered, becoming more acidic. This is the macroscopic effect of the creation of carbonic acid, the result of an equilibrium between CO2 and H2O.

Expand this experiment to a system where you're not blowing the CO2 in, but rather you have a box with water and a mix of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and the other gasses latently present in the air. It becomes apparent then, that it doesn't require blowing into the water, this equilibrium still occurs, and the more CO2 you add, the more it shifts towards carbonic acid.

Now is the part where the layman might get lost. Given the trillions of pounds of carbon that are put into the atmosphere yearly by the U.S. alone (15.1 trillion pounds in 2014), the amount of carbon in the atmosphere slowly builds, and isn't taken out by the means it normally does. The ocean and the atmosphere undergo the same kind of equilibrium of carbonic acid, with the acidity of the ocean increasing with CO2 levels. Animals that require calcium carbonate shells, like mollusks, end up dying out en masse, which has a huge effect on the population of those who prey on mollusks, and so on down the line- this is seen almost immediately with how poorly the fishing industry has been doing in many areas.

This is, by and large, an issue of increased rate being a problem. Over time, there will be just a shift in the ecosystem, with species like algae becoming more abundant, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and normalizing levels, but that's not possible if levels that break the natural buffers continue to exist of carbon emissions.

>>9357053
What kind of layman has a pH meter lying around their kitchen m8