/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2275913

>I've just proven I can't interpret a graph.

Okay, you've just presented evidence in favour of global warming without realising it.

If you check out the x axis (that flat thing), you'll see the scale is over hundreds of thousands of years. The y axis (that tall thing) you'll see the temperature variation is about 14 degrees. Even the most rapid change in temperature as indicated on this graph takes thousands of years.

We're currently on track to raise the temperature of Earth 4 degrees in this coming century.

Also, for every degree the world warms about ten percent of the global food supply is wiped out. Considering we live in a world that already experiences mass starvation and famine, that number alone should be sobering.

To the left is proof man's actions have an impact on atmospheric temperature, you see how between 1943 and 1979 Earth's temperature is relatively stable? It was caused by aerosol particles such as chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight, which were then banned because of their effect on the Ozone layer. If you just rise to the minimal standard of intellectual honesty and be cognisant of this effect, why is a similar human effect that explains what you accept to be happening (climate-change) not possible?