/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11601293
adding the modern data doesn't make the trends correlate you retard. Temperature is flat
the rate of change of temperature is not unprecedented either. pic related
>How is it insignificant? It shows the warming you delusionally deny.
the treds don't correlate if you add data post 1855. pic related

>why 2 standard deviations
becaus 95% of the temperature is beneath that. Still having trouble with the concept of high you retard?
>So you're basing your correlation on a guess of an arbitrary standard? But you supposedly already know about Milankovich cycles, which are not caused by CO2 levels reaching some arbitrary level. Do you ever get tired of being BTFO?
>debating the concept of high.
You are the dumbest cunt on here

>>11601296
answered them here >>11601232