/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11568850
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>11314129
>Tony Heller demonstrates with data and historical articles that the climate is cyclical.
Climatologists already showed that long before Tony Heller. The issue is, current warming is completely outside of the cycle.

What Tony actually does is cherrypick data sets and claim any difference between them is due to a conspiracy and not the fact that they represent different things or are from different sources of data or have correction procedures that are well explained by climatologists.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

>>11306013
>You can't argue with science.
You can argue whether something is accurate science. For example, the graph you posted is from a faulty model for northern hemisphere temperatures: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

So the graph is wrong, and irrelevant since it doesn't show global temperature, and the temperature gets cut off before most global warming occurred. Pic related for accurate Northern Henisphere reconstructions, which shows modern temperatures greatly exceed the MWP.

I also find your claim amusing since you are attempting (and failing) to argue against climate science.