/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10442266
>The sun has been very active lately
Solar activity has been decreasing for decades and is near a grand minimum.

>we don't know how much of the warming it did and how much anthropomorphism did.
We do. Pic related.

>CO2 greenhouse effect isn't strong enough to cause the observed warming.
You just said we don't know how much warming is caused by man but now you say the greenhouse effect is not strong enough...

>Steady solar radiation and thermal radiation balance means warming isn't from a greenhouse effect.
There is no steady balance since the global temperature is increasing. A change in temperature is caused by an imbalance between energy entering the system and energy leaving it. The amount of energy being emitted by CO2 is directly observed with radiative spectroscopy.

Why do deniers constantly lie?

>>10364812

>>10303520
The contribution from man is more than 100% of the warming, since we would be cooling without our contribution. Note that the radiative forcing from CO2 is not based on modeling but on direct observation via radiative spectroscopy of the amount of heat being radiated towards earth from CO2.

>>10282777
>You haven't proved that humans are causing the earth to warm instead of the earth and the sun causing it, which is the default position and demonstrateable with the sunset and sunrise.
That's exactly what climatologists have done, you deluded little moron.

>>10182546
>"millenia" relies on an accurate assessment of the average global temperature in the distant past, these assessments are controversial
How are they controversial? If anything is controversial it's the pseudoscience you're posting.

>The OP does not necessarily dispute this
It attempts to distract from this with irrelevant statistics about the whole atmosphere and the whole greenhouse effect.

>But to what extent is not so clear.
Wrong, see pic.

>Doesn't specify Co2
Keep reading.

>None of these points contradict the OP's argument.
That's because the OP's argument is a red herring.

>>9806653
Its actually more than 100%

>>9799939
>That's just an opinion. And you should know "le 91% of climate experts consensus" isn't a valid scientific proof for anything.
You do know that 97% consensus is not an opinion poll, right? It means 97% of the published evidence supports the theory. It is in fact the closest you can get to scientific proof.

The fact that humans are wholly responsible is proven by the fact that we can measure the amount of heat coming from CO2 in the atmosphere via radiative spectroscopy and we know we are the only source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere via isotope analysis.

>>9792722
>Is global warming real?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best

>Is it caused by human life
See pic.

>is it dangerous for us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

>>9553091
So which of these is not enough evidence?

1. Radiative spectroscopy shows that the change in incoming heat received from CO2 is about the same as the net change in incoming heat received by the Earth.

2. Humans are the only net source of CO2 on Earth. Natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources.

>>9165493
>Not how much through.
Nope that's settled too:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

>Show me a proper cross section report with the CO2 contribution.
Oh look, another idiot engineer who denies basic science. Aren't you late for a 9/11 truth rally?