/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11419783]

>Complete brainlet here
If we are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, wouldn't that imply that we are increasing its volume?
And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that the top layers are more distant to the earth0s surface and consequently are less attracted to it and therefore the solar wind would blow off the planet said top layers of the atmosphere?
If so, what are the implications?
Is all oxygen gonna be blown off to outer space?

[Anonymous No.11419787]

>>11419783
>If we are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, wouldn't that imply that we are increasing its volume?
No

[Anonymous No.11419814]

>>11419787
ok why not?
does all that co2 get processed? then why climate change?

[Anonymous No.11419828]

>>11419814
An increase in gaseous concentration does not increase volume. The definition of a gas is a substance that's volume fills the container it is in, completely - unlike a liquid, where an increase in the concentration also increases the volume.

[Anonymous No.11419838]

>>11419783
CO2-driven climate change is complete pseudoscience and is only a "thing" because implementing carbon control schemes leads directly to world communism.

[Anonymous No.11419843]

>>11419838
cool story bro, mind posting your evidence?

[Anonymous No.11419847]

>>11419783
410 ppm which is currently concentration is only 0.041% of the earth atmosphere

[Anonymous No.11419849]

>>11419847
>current

[Anonymous No.11419858]

>>11419783
>If we are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, wouldn't that imply that we are increasing its volume?
Indeed we are, but due to thermal expansion from global warming, not simply the amount of gas.

>And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that the top layers are more distant to the earth0s surface and consequently are less attracted to it and therefore the solar wind would blow off the planet said top layers of the atmosphere?
No.

[Anonymous No.11419883]

>>11419843
Post evidence CO2 is what drives climate change.
lol I'l wait.

[Anonymous No.11420029]

>>11419883
OK, here you go: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

Now where is your evidence?

[Anonymous No.11420044]

>>11419828
you have no idea what you're talking about do you

[Anonymous No.11420460]

>>11420029
>http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Not very persuasive as it mostly assumes correlation is causation, without confounders.
Also, its from 2015... where is the evidence that justified all the hysteria from the previous 20 years?
>Now where is your evidence?
Prove a negative? lol that's not how science works, bub.

[Anonymous No.11420820]

>>11420460
>Not very persuasive as it mostly assumes correlation is causation, without confounders.
No it doesn't. What "correlation" are you talking about?

>Also, its from 2015... where is the evidence that justified all the hysteria from the previous 20 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

>Prove a negative?
So you have no evidence for your claim. Why did you claim it? Do you lie often?

[Anonymous No.11420824]

>>11420820
He's a shill repeating what he's told, there's no rational thought to be found here you're just wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.11420829]

>>11419843
Not him and not a "climate denier" but can anyone answer me, have we even altered the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not the PPM but the %

[Anonymous No.11420832]

>>11420829
What do you think the difference is between percentage and ppm?

[Anonymous No.11420838]

>>11420820
>No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Read it.
>What "correlation" are you talking about?
CO2 levels and radiative forcing.
>wikipedia
lol
>prove a negative, or else!
Prove you're not a retard.
I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.11420855]

>assumes correlation is causation
greenhouse effect is literally a physical fact
first year students can calculate the heat it absorbs, this isn't rocket science.
the pressure of the atmosphere is determined by the volume, gravity, and temperature of the planet. The first two are constant, the second is only slowly increasing and we are concerned with its causes not vice versa. if the partial pressure of greenhouse gases (i.e. the gases that absorb infrared radiation thus get hot) increases then the amount of heat in the atmosphere also will increase. if the radiative efficiency of the gas stays relatively constant (i.e. the change is much smaller wrt GHG partial pressure than energy absorption, which it is) then the atmosphere will absorb more heat than it can radiate. the temperature of the atmosphere will increase.
I study physical chemistry so it is ridiculous that people think the greenhouse effect is real. it's so plainly obvious that i just dismiss deniers as at-best-midwit reactionary contrarians, completely ignorant of thermodynamics and basic chemistry.

I will say this:
climate change is inextricably linked with politics and public opinion. therefore it'll be a total clusterfuck of popular interpretation that cannot be judged by the standards of other sciences.
Anthropogenic climate change implies political action. The narrative has become colloquially that individual lifestyle choices are the main contributor. A few ways this manifests is in controversies like plastic straws, and hyperprocessed simulated meat. People wax poetically about how veganism can save the planet.
Everyone needs energy, vegan or otherwise. The IPCC reported in 2014 that 80% of global GHG emissions were due to industry, transportation, electricity and heat, and other energy. Only 24% was due to all of agriculture, land use, and forestry together. None of these numbers match what I've heard from movies like Cowspiracy, which claims 50% of GHGs are caused by agriculture alone.

[Anonymous No.11420858]

>>11420832
one is a parts per million and the other is the percentage of gas in the atmosphere.
I'm asking if humans have increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here are the approximates

Nitrogen (N2): 78.08%
Oxygen (O2): 20.95%
Argon (Ar): 0.93%
Carbon dioxide (CO2): 0.038%
Water (H2O): 1%

[Anonymous No.11420860]

>>11420838
>Yes it does. Read it.
I've read it several times.

>CO2 levels and radiative forcing.
Causation is directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. That's the entire point of the paper. Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it.

>>wikipedia
>lol
Not an argument, try again.

>>prove a negative, or else!
No one asked you to prove a negative, they asked you for evidence. You have none, because you're just making shit up. What a surprise.

[Anonymous No.11420871]

>>11420858
>one is a parts per million and the other is the percentage of gas in the atmosphere.
Yeah, you realize that those are essentially the same thing right?

ppm = (x parts CO2)/(y parts atmosphere/1000000) = 1000000x/y

percentage = 100x/y

ppm = 10000*percentage

If humans have increased the ppm then they have increased percentage.

[Anonymous No.11420888]

The problem is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb infrared radiation, which accounts for about 50% of the sun's radiation, because of their polarized bonds. O2, and N2, the majority of the atmosphere, don't absorb infrared because they have no electric dipole. But CO2, H2O, and CH4 can absorb the energy by vibrating polarized bonds. This light energy is thus transferred to the atmosphere as heat. The atmosphere can only radiate a certain amount of heat into the vacuum of space, a terrible heat conductor, and most is lost by radiative emission of light, an inefficient way to cool off. An increase in the concentration of the absorbing gases (GHGs) increases the energy absorbed by the atmosphere, increasing how much it is heated. This is irrespective of the atmospheric pressure and volume (pV=nRT).
In fact, it's compounded by the scenario in the OP as infrared-inactive gases like N2, O2, H2, He, Ar, etc., are generally lighter than GHGs like H2O, CH4, CO2, N2O, NO2, CFCs, etc. They'll float to the top of the atmosphere and be the first to escape into space, leaving the GHGs behind.
>>11419828
what does the increase in the concentration of a liquid even mean?? liquids have activities of unity. solutes in solvents can have different activities.
regardless, it's an empirical fact that the atmospheric pressure is relatively constant. that's why we report thermodynamic values at a constant pressure (1 bar) irrespective of temperature. the concentration of GHGs is increasing, this is a scientific fact.

[Anonymous No.11420894]

>>11420855
anyway my point was that it is weird that blame is deflected onto individual peoples lifestyles choices than onto the majority contributors to pollution and GHG emissions that they cannot directly control. (Save it being a status symbol like a Tesla.)

[Anonymous No.11420912]

>>11420894
That's just big oil and coal trying as hard as possible to avoid the limelight. After all it's not their fault its actually THE CONSUMERS FAULT OK WE'RE INNOCENT
which is why collective action is needed.

[Anonymous No.11420920]

>>11420912
What choice does the consumer have? Don't heat their homes? Don't drive to work? Obviously everyone can do their part to live sustainably but some things are out of individual control. I cannot just choose where to get my energy from, it comes from the energy companies. Here it's mostly nuclear and hydro, but I couldn't afford to get solar cells (or install them) even if I wanted to.
It's literally life or death for regular people, but governments and industry need to make green tech available to regular people.

[Anonymous No.11420925]

>>11420920
that's exactly my point, oil companies try to blame the consumer when there's no other option for anyone but the wealthy. While in reality there are countless viable options which don't emit CO2 which will never be implemented as they are less profitable. This is why collective action in the form of legislation is required.

[Anonymous No.11420952]

>>11420925
we agree, then. thank you, anon, have a nice night

[Anonymous No.11421064]

>>11420871
>Yeah, you realize that those are essentially the same thing right?
what?
one is parts per million, the other is parts per hundred.
What percentage increase in CO2 have humans caused with industry? What gasses have decreased as a consequence? I'm guessing 02 but I can't find anything

[Anonymous No.11421214]

>>11421064
>NUMBER SMALL SMALL THING NO CAN HURT GRUG
Am i missing something or is this your logic.

[Anonymous No.11421217]

>>11419783
Did you forget that the CO2 comes from a big hole in the ground? Idiot

[Anonymous No.11421244]

>>11421214
How bout answer the question.
As originally stated, I'm not here to argue for or against

[Anonymous No.11421249]

>>11421064
If you are asking that have humans increased CO2 concentration by 1% or more the answer is no, if we has we'd be knee deep in shit. The thing is that even small changes (some ppm) are enough to make a difference

[Anonymous No.11421307]

>>11421244
Then the answer to your question is answered if you simply do the unit conversions.
O2 is decreasing slightly.
>http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/faq.html

[Anonymous No.11421322]

>>11420894
>they dont control it
the majority contributors exist to facilitate the individuals lifestyle you absolute fucking mong
>>11420920
>Don't heat their homes? Don't drive to work?
Yes to both, heaven forbid you have to deal with a slight inconvenience

[Anonymous No.11421525]

>>11421064
>what?
>one is parts per million, the other is parts per hundred.
Wow good job, now why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?

[Anonymous No.11422765]

>>11420920
She sailed a boat across the Atlantic to avoid causing pollution from a jet liner. What's your excuse?

>>11421322
Most people don't have an accurate conception of where most greenhouse gas emissions come from. Thus, their attention can be drawn away from major contributors.

[Anonymous No.11422887]

>>11421307
wow that slope sure did change dramatically after they installed the new measuring equipment in 1960 or so

[Anonymous No.11422898]

>>11419783
>If we are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere, wouldn't that imply that we are increasing its volume?
Technically yes, practically no. The simple heating of the atmosphere expands it more than the addition of gas and even that has no practical real effects.

>And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that the top layers are more distant to the earth0s surface and consequently are less attracted to it and therefore the solar wind would blow off the planet said top layers of the atmosphere?
no

>Is all oxygen gonna be blown off to outer space?
no

[Anonymous No.11422902]

>>11422887
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

[Anonymous No.11423351]

>>11420912
Your statement implies if everyone stopped consuming their product that they'd laugh their evil hands off while spewing the emissions themselves. Do your part. Ride the bus. Grow your own veggies so they don't have to transport all of them to you. Insulate your house.

[Anonymous No.11423355]

>>11420920
Chop wood you fancy faggot

[Anonymous No.11423830]

>>11421525
I'm asking for the data but all I'm getting is insults

[Anonymous No.11424154]

>>11422902
oh right, the data just happened to change at the same moment that the new measuring equipment was installed

[Anonymous No.11425615]

>>11424154
The data was always changing though. Do you understand what exponential growth is?

[Anonymous No.11425638]

>>11424154
Have sex

[Anonymous No.11425656]

>>11423830
No you asked "have we even altered the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not the PPM but the %"

Then you acted as if you knew ppm and % were the same thing the whole time. Which begs the question, why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

[Anonymous No.11425680]

>>11425656
It's called a "gocha", the idea is to trap someone in their answer. The usual conversation simply goes from gocha to gocha to gocha until the bump limit is reached or the blogger runs out of gochas in which case they go read more blogs for more gochas.

[Anonymous No.11426362]

We should be losing CO2, since CO2 is lighter than H2O.

[Anonymous No.11426590]

>>11420460
>Prove a negative? lol that's not how science works, bub.
Ah yes, science is all about proving hypotheses and not disproving them, how could i forget.

[Anonymous No.11427126]

>always shilling CO2
>never mentioning the slow growth in intensity of our solar maximums(we're near minimum now)
>never mentioning the big ass hole in the O3 layer the boomers caused
>always taxing highly refined 4 stroke gasoline used by passenger cars
>never taxing dirty ass 2 cycle fuel used by transoceanic cargo ships
>never taxing diesel fuel used by 18 wheelers
>always spending more on wars in the sand when even a fraction of the money could fund research into alternative fuels for years
I will accept a carbon tax when Noseberg McRosenstein pays one as well.

[Anonymous No.11427554]

>>11427126
>>never mentioning the slow growth in intensity of our solar maximums(we're near minimum now)
Solar variability is much weaker than the greenhouse effect and can't explain observed warming.

>>never mentioning the big ass hole in the O3 layer the boomers caused
What of it?

>>always taxing highly refined 4 stroke gasoline used by passenger cars
>>never taxing dirty ass 2 cycle fuel used by transoceanic cargo ships
Which tax are you referring to?

>>always spending more on wars in the sand when even a fraction of the money could fund research into alternative fuels for years
Who?

[Anonymous No.11427662]

>>11420860
causation can never be directly observed

[Anonymous No.11428374]

>>11427662
>causation can never be directly observed
Incorrect. Radiative spectroscopy tells you which gases are radiating heat and in what proportion. So by observing changes in the radiative spectrum over time, you can see which gases are causing changes in heat.

[Anonymous No.11428463]

>>11428374
How can you "tell"? What do you mean by something causing another thing?

[Anonymous No.11428476]

>>11428463
>How can you "tell"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

>What do you mean by something causing another thing?
It means that it has an effect. CO2 absorbs and radiates infrared heat. What don't you understand about this?

[Anonymous No.11428479]

>>11428476
Let me put it another way: if the scientific method is to be trusted, causality should never be able to be established.

[Anonymous No.11428488]

>>11428479
Why? You seem so desperate to deny basic reality that you are incapable of making an argument.

[Anonymous No.11428504]

>>11428488
You seem so desperate that you can't even make an argument. How would you actually establish causality by experiment?

[Anonymous No.11428510]

>>11428504
Correction: How would you "directly observe" (which is what you claimed) causality in an experiment?

[Anonymous No.11428516]

>>11428504
>How would you actually establish causality by experiment?
Didn't I just explain that? >>11428374

You have yet to explain what exactly you don't understand. Instead you just repeat the inane contention that causality cannot be shown. You have no argument, so you lose.

[Anonymous No.11428528]

>>11428516
He means it like
>how do you know reality is like real dude
way, not how do normal people know it

[Anonymous No.11428550]

>>11428516
You have not proven that it can be shown, dummy. I mean, why do you even need an experiment if you can just "directly observe" causality. You can just "tell", right? So let's just tell everyone to just directly observe, and then no experiment is needed. There, I solved science.

[Anonymous No.11428562]

>>11428528
I'm sure normal people agree on the causes of everything. That's why political discussions don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11428564]

>>11428550
>You have not proven that it can be shown, dummy.
I did. What don't you understand about the experiment?

>I mean, why do you even need an experiment if you can just "directly observe" causality.
To do the observation.

Every post in which you fail to make an argument further cements your stupidity. Please post more.

[Anonymous No.11428569]

>>11428562
Not everything is unknown, not everything is political. Dumb /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.11428591]

>>11428564
Only correlations can be directly observed, causality must be inferred. You have shown nothing and don't even understand how experiments are devised.
>>11428569
Nice non sequiturs.

[Anonymous No.11428612]

>>11428550
It's actually very easy in principal to conduct an experiment that shows causality. A simple random controlled study can do it. For example, if you want to show that there is causation between smoking and lung cancer, and not some hidden factor that causes both cancer and smoking, all you have to do is select individuals randomly, split them into two groups and tell one group to smoke and the other to not smoke. If you find a difference in cancer rate then this means there is causation between smoking and cancer that the hidden factor cannot explain, since the random distribution of patients and the control over smoking does not allow the hidden factor to operate. Of course, such an experiment would be unethical and it is often difficult to create a completely randomized and controlled study. Even then, there are statistical methods (causal calculus) that can allow you to infer causal relationships from imperfectly randomized or controlled data.

[Anonymous No.11428618]

>>11428591
>Only correlations can be directly observed
Not an argument, I already showed you how causation can be directly observed. Repeating already disproven claims with no argument just makes you look delusional and retarded. Please keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.11428645]

There is literally a greenhouse a few blocks from my house that traps gases heated by sunlight inside it, allowing tropical plants to exist while snow is on the ground outside it.

There is literally an entire planet named Venus that is far hotter than Mercury on the surface because the gravity of that planet traps gases heated by sunlight inside its gravity well. Incidentally, its atmosphere is primarily CO2.

We literally know that earth traps its atmosphere in its gravity well also and we are even slightly more massive than Venus.

We literally know that human factories, coal powerplants, and cars produce CO2.

Plants will literally die without CO2 to breathe.

Humans have literally deforested entire continental regions; it's in the historical record.

The presence of oxygen at the levels it is found is literally anomalous within the solar system and therefore best explained by the action of photosynthesizing plants early in the planet's history, which broke down CO2 in the atmosphere to create the oxygen we breathe today.

There were literally scientists over a hundred years ago who predicted climate change was a possibility because they knew of only some of the above facts.

It's not a question of proving anthropogenic climate change. You'd have to be retarded to think it wouldn't happen, based on everything else we already know. It is literally the common-sense position.

[Anonymous No.11428648]

>>11428618
Point to where you've shown it, please.
>>11428612
That's called inference.

[Anonymous No.11428656]

>>11428648
I did already >>11428374

[Anonymous No.11428662]

>>11428648
>That's called inference.
So?

[Anonymous No.11428685]

>>11428656
So you're proof of direct observation of causality is inference of causality from a controlled experiment?
>>11428662
It's called inference because you're inferring there is causality, it's not a direct observation.

[Anonymous No.11428716]

>>11428685
>So you're proof of direct observation of causality is inference of causality from a controlled experiment?
What inference of causality? Directly observing the radiative forcing from CO2 via spectroscopy is not an inference.

[Anonymous No.11428724]

>>11428685
>It's called inference because you're inferring there is causality, it's not a direct observation.
So what?

[Anonymous No.11428734]

>>11428716
you're inferring that the energy observed by the spectrometer is caused by the presence of CO2, but technically it could be caused by something which only occurs when the CO2 is present.

It's an inference. However, some inferences are much, much more reliable that others. Incidentally, this is why you look like a goddamn jackass for denigrating correlation.

[Anonymous No.11428745]

>>11428716
>>11428724
This guy is claiming he is directly observing causality when he is making inferences of causal relationship between parameters in some experiment. It was only supposed to be a small observation, but he took it super personally for some reason.

[Anonymous No.11428788]

>>11428734
>you're inferring that the energy observed by the spectrometer is caused by the presence of CO2, but technically it could be caused by something which only occurs when the CO2 is present.
Incorrect. I suggest you read the article about spectroscopy instead of making up pseudoscientific claims.

>Incidentally, this is why you look like a goddamn jackass for denigrating correlation.
Where did I "denigrate correlation?"

[Anonymous No.11428800]

>it's not MY truth that the greenhouse effect exists
Jesus christ listen to yourself, what the fuck is wrong with you

[Anonymous No.11428810]

>>11428788
I don't have to read anything; my claim about what the spectrometer is observing has nothing to do with the particulars of spectrometry, but rather with the philosophy of science and epistemology in general, which incidentally is where you have been unfortunately misled up til now.

The way I read your arguments so far, you're claiming that because the article linked provided "only" correlation for climate change instead of causal evidence, you don't find the linked article very persuasive.

This denigrates the argumentative power of correlation in comparison to causation, if I understand you properly. If I misunderstand, please feel free to express why causation would convince you where correlation would not. I would love to not be talking with a jackass or someone unable to teach me anything.

[Anonymous No.11428815]

>>11428745
>This guy is claiming he is directly observing causality
I don't see what that has to do with my post.

[Anonymous No.11428828]

>>11428815
that's probably because you can't into correlation so you're still waiting for a causal relationship to somehow manifest.

I.E. you can't use your fucking brain.

[Anonymous No.11428836]

>>11428810
>I don't have to read anything; my claim about what the spectrometer is observing has nothing to do with the particulars of spectrometry
LOL, you brag about your blatant ignorance. Guess what, if you had read the article, you would know that your claim that a spectroscopic result could occur from something which only occurs when CO2 is present is pure nonsense.

>but rather with the philosophy of science and epistemology in general, which incidentally is where you have been unfortunately misled up til now.
Please show me the philosophy of science or epistemology which shows causality cannot be directly observed. All you've done is repeat your claim as a mantra. There is nothing supporting it, empirically or philosophically.

>The way I read your arguments so far, you're claiming that because the article linked provided "only" correlation for climate change instead of causal evidence, you don't find the linked article very persuasive.
What are you talking about? I never said anything like that.

[Anonymous No.11428842]

>>11428828
No one can understand your schizo babble. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11428843]

>>11428836
How do you know it is pure nonsense?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118445112.stat03727

"lthough much of science is devoted to inferring causation, it is generally accepted that causation cannot be directly observed because doing so would require observing mutually contradictory states of the world."

nbd my man.

OK, if you have not in fact denigrated correlation, then you should probably find the article linked, which provides ample correlative evidence, quite persuasive. You can tell us you've changed your mind, or you can also lie and claim it wasn't you who originally denied the article was persuasive. I don't really care - whatever makes sense to you.

[Anonymous No.11428892]

>>11428843
>well your honor it's not possible to directly observe causation so you can't convict me of raping and murdering all those kids

[Anonymous No.11428894]

>>11428892
t. doesn't understand causal inference.

[Anonymous No.11428900]

>>11428894
if you think it has any relevance to the discussion in this thread it's clear you don't either

[Anonymous No.11428908]

>>11428900
keep going, maybe eventually people will forget that you have elided any admission of utterly failing to refute the article or any of the logical thought presented to you in this place, showing you that anthropogenic climate change is the most rational interpretation of all the data available to us.

[Anonymous No.11428916]

>>11428843
>How do you know it is pure nonsense?
Because unlike you I understand how spectroscopy works. I would ask you to explain your own claim but you already admitted you have no clue what you're talking about.

>"lthough much of science is devoted to inferring causation, it is generally accepted that causation cannot be directly observed because doing so would require observing mutually contradictory states of the world."
What mutually contradictory states of the world are being observed?

>You can tell us you've changed your mind, or you can also lie and claim it wasn't you who originally denied the article was persuasive.
I still have no clue what article you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11428919]

>>11428908
I'm not >>11428810
you misunderstood my post making fun of him

[Anonymous No.11428946]

>>11428916
Hey man, if you wanted a lesson on spectroscopy, you could have just asked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

"Spectroscopy /spɛkˈtrɒskəpi/ is the study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiation (via electron spectroscopy, atomic spectroscopy, etc)."

Basically we are observing energy states which are strongly correlated with the presence of certain types of matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy#Nature_of_the_interaction

The section above gives you a nice breakdown on the different kinds.

The difference between the energy measured and the matter observed thereby is the source of the inference. As Descartes observed, we cannot know that there is no demon presenting falsehoods to us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

Therefore because of this weakness of our senses, we do not have direct access to causation and it remains possible, however, unlikely, that some third undetected thing causes the observed energy which is taken as an observation of the matter when in fact it is not.

Fortunately for science, law, and pretty much every other human endeavor, using strong correlation to make causal inferences is really all we truly need to make pragmatic decisions.

This has been ten minutes with babby's first philosophy of science, featuring your host Anon. Please stay tuned for our next episode where our studio audience pretends ignorance once again so we can continue berating them.

[Anonymous No.11428988]

>>11428815
>It's actually very easy in principal [sic] to conduct an experiment that shows causality
Is what you said, which I took to mean direct observation of causality, use clearer terms next time.
>>11428916
>I understand how spectroscopy works
Doesn't matter, we know direct observation of causality is impossible from first principles.

[Anonymous No.11429004]

>>11428946
>Hey man, if you wanted a lesson on spectroscopy, you could have just asked.
I posted a link to that article >>11428476
and you ignored it.

>Basically we are observing energy states which are strongly correlated with the presence of certain types of matter.
Not simply strongly correlated. No two elements give the same emission spectra. So your claim that something else could be giving the same result is nonsense.

And yet again you fail to explain what article you claim I denigrated. More delusional babble.

[Anonymous No.11429005]

>>11428988
>Doesn't matter, we know direct observation of causality is impossible from first principles.
Which first principles?

[Anonymous No.11429008]

>>11428988
>Is what you said, which I took to mean direct observation of causality, use clearer terms next time.
What was unclear? It's not my fault you can't read.

[Anonymous No.11429009]

>>11429004
>No two elements give the same emission spectra
And that was established by causal inference
>>11429005
Philosophy of science.
>>11429008
What I quoted.

[Anonymous No.11429011]

>>11429004
I'm ignoring it because frankly I already understand spectroscopy and I'm playing oldcom instead of reading; that's how much energy I'm investing into this. You are literally my second screen diversion while I wait for another UFO to show up in my game.

Your failure to understand the fundamental insights of Descartes and many other scientists and philosophers throughout history is worrying, but predictable.

The article's above; it's the only one concerning climate change in the thread AFAIK. Have fun.

[Anonymous No.11429040]

>>11429009
>And that was established by causal inference
No, not really. The spectra of molecules are determined by their electronic structure.

>Philosophy of science
Which one? And which first principles?

>>11429011
>I'm ignoring it because frankly I already understand spectroscopy
Then why did you claim that CO2's spectra could be caused by something which only occurs when CO2 is present?

>The article's above; it's the only one concerning climate change in the thread AFAIK. Have fun.
I posted that article, ignorant moron.

[Anonymous No.11429046]

>>11429009
>What I quoted.
There's nothing unclear there. Why can't you read simple sentences?

[Anonymous No.11429050]

>>11429040
Oh cool, I thought you were some kind of climate change denier.

In any event, you don't understand causal inference or what I said about the "evil demon" of Descartes, but at least you understand enough to promote understanding of anthropogenic climate change.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I won't be posting further here, but do try to get some education on philosophy of science going forward.

[Anonymous No.11429062]

>>11429040
>spectra of molecules are determined by their electronic structure
That was established by causal inference.
>Which one? And which first principles?
All of them. Falsifiability.
>>11429046
I already explained.

[Anonymous No.11429069]

>>11429050
You're a moron who can't even read or come up with justifications for his claims. Descartes demon is hyperskepticism that would not allow any inferences, let alone direct observation. Nice LARP.

[Anonymous No.11429074]

>>11419843
have you been braindead for the last fifty years?

[Anonymous No.11429076]

>>11429062
>That was established by causal inference.
Not really, no.

>All of them.
Name one.

>Falsifiability.
Any observation is falsifiable, try again LARPer. Or you could just admit you're pulling all of this out of your ass. It would save a lot of time.

[Anonymous No.11429083]

>>11429074
>have you been braindead for the last fifty years?
No, is that a requirement to believing the conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.11429086]

>>11429062
>I already explained.
No you didn't. Stop posting, retard.

[Anonymous No.11429087]

>>11422765
>She sailed a boat across the Atlantic to avoid causing pollution from a jet liner.
sure, with the backing of George Soros or whatever lunatic to funding millions of dollars to perpetrate this retarded farce ecal scheme whose sole purpose is to enforce penalty taxes of all sorts on working class slaves nad install more and more controls and limitations on every move we make

just a an excuse to lock us all down into a containment zone and limit us to assigned and regulated travel routes in assigned and regulated oligarchy controlled transport systems

THX1138 and Orwells 1984

[Anonymous No.11429090]

>>11429083
>is that a requirement to believing the pseudoscience of human caused "global warming"?
i guess so

[Anonymous No.11429091]

>>11429076
How was it established, then?
>>11429086
These little quips must mean the world to you.

[Anonymous No.11429092]

>>11429087
you do realize that the rich and powerful are among those who stand to benefit most from keeping our current economy based on coal and petrol running, right?

[Anonymous No.11429098]

>>11429092
/pol/tard

i'm referring to a higher level of elite puppet maters

[Anonymous No.11429106]

>>11429098
loooooooooooool