/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8622326
You can also read about temperature projections not being underestimated.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

>All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

I don't expect any of you trolls to actually bother to read these papers or understand the evidence however. It's impossible when you're only thinking of muh fee fees rather than being a rational person.

Isn't it ironic how in an effort to counter and combat the so called "SJWs" people like yourselves have adopted their tactics of being completely irrational people, ignoring the evidence, and burying their heads in the sand?


>>8622341
When you're clearly losing an argument, resort to the same ad hom tactics from before. Man, you never do learn, do you? The best thing you could do is to simply accept you've lost and leave this thread gracefully, but you won't.