/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15541264
Cools story however you’re once again using regional data and that ice core temperature estimates end before the instrumental record which is not included in that dataset. Curious why you you purposely mislabeled the graph as if it included modern temperatures

>>15469178
Even at the fastest onset of the more recent interglacial, it took thousands of years for a degree of warming. Now the planet has warmed a degree in 100 years.

>>15460998
Even in the fastest warming on the interglacial it took thousands of years to increase one degree yet now we’ve accelerated the warming to a degree per 100 years

>>15451039
>Graph with no axes and no data
Great

>>15274042
Do you have any arguments about methodology? Because otherwise you’re just spouting nonsense. The greenhouse effect is a measured intrinsic property of CO2 that has been directly measured to cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.

>>15239200
Yeah man we’ve accelerated warming 10x faster than during the fastest warming in the onset of the interglacial periods but nothing to see here

>>15183329
That graph does not contain any modern data and it’s from a single location. But you already knew that didn’t you?

>>15168175
Fake graphs. The first two are from ice cores in Greenland and don't represent the global temperature. The x axis on the second is mislabeled side "Present" = 1950. The data ends in 1855 before any significant warming occurred. But you already know all this, shill.

>>15121484
Yes, the rate of warming is many times faster than in the onset of the interglacial periods

>>15098752
>>I know we've been wrong about every doom-&-gloom prediction we've made for the past 120 years
Who?

>I unironically hate climatards more than almost any group in society based solely on how much damage they have actively caused to the economy of the 1st world.
Why are you pretending to care about the economy when you want to subject it to unmitigated global warming? You want to hurt the economy.

>The climate will always be changing, it's never been static.
Who said anything to the contrary? The issue is not whether it changes but how fast it changes.

>Especially after the GISP2 & Antartica Ice Core analyses
What about them? inb4 you confuse Greenland and Antarctica with the entire globe.

>(pic related)
Fake graph. There's no HadCRUT data for the GISP2 site. Calling it "Central Greenland temperature" is a lie.

>Al Gore REEEEEEE
No one cares.

>Any excuses to why Florida, Vanuatu, Palau, or Kiribati aren't literally underwater right now
Who said they would be?

>>15084726
>It's not even the most rapid warming in 12,000 years, you retard.
It's 25 times faster than the fastest warming in the last 12000 years, moron.

>>15079413
There’s no modern temperature data from those cores

>>15075063
>Proof?
Pic related.

>Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

>So?
So you have no point in whining about this.

>Thanks for admitting you lied.
Where?

>>15072485
>And yet you had no complaints with low resolution ice core data and fraudulent non-measured interpolations
I don't see any.

>the modern era is suffering from unprecedented warming.
The modern era is suffering from a rate of warming unprecedented in the past 3 million years. Rapid warming in the past is associated with mass extinctions

>>15036604

>>15027146
Your chart is incorrect, that's not global temperature, it's temperature determined from ice cores in one location in Greenland. It also fails to mention that the data ends around 1850 and then today's CO2 level is added. Here's a more accurate chart.

>Like shouldn't the climate be 10C warmer by now going by past data that shows the co2 and temp in lock step only until recently?
There's a lag since, unlike in the past, CO2 rapidly increased prior to the temperature change. And the relation between temperature and CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.

>>15007163
Fake graph. That reconstruction is from ice cores so the data ends before current warming. The label that says "Current" is a lie. It's also not even global temperature (45N to 80N latitude).

>>14959842
The chart I posted is increasing radiative forcing due to increasing CO2
That data from the EPICA ice core does not include modern temperatures.
Previously it took 1-2k years per degree of warming, now we’ve surpassed that in 100
>>14959719
Truly an amazing argument

>>14944778
>This can't be determined with the data we have available.
Sure it can. Pic related.

>The current warming peak looks exactly like the one from before the last ice age
You mean the last glacial period? No it doesn't. Interglacial warming ended 10,000 years ago. That's the peak that looks similar. The current peak isn't similar in timing or in magnitude. It's the exact opposite of the interglacial-glacial cycle.

>with the exception of a very short-duration spike which can't be captured on historical climate proxies.
Why would we need proxies to capture it when we can measure it directly?

>For all we know this is a natural process that kickstarts the decline into the next ice age
You're confusing your lack of knowledge with what climatologists know. We know what causes interglacials and their timing (Milankovich cycles). We know what causes current warming: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

They are not the same.

>but it happens too quickly to be caught on the "record" in climate proxies.
No, the ice core record has very good resolution. Ice cores can't tell us about recent temperature changes because it takes a long time for the ice to form, not because the changes are too fast.

>>14864502
>It was excedingly cold in the 1850s for one.
Not really. Pic related.

>There's little doubt that we have an urban heath Island effect
It has no significant effect on the warming trend.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

>>14848303
>I'm not lying
Then why can't you show a single example of what you claimed? You're a liar.

>No causation has been shown of man on climate.
Lie.

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>No evidence has been presented suggesting the climate is changing abnormally.
Lie. Pic related.

>The natural cycle is intact.
Lie. The natural cycle says we should be slowly cooling. Instead we're warming 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.

>Read the thread, it has been explained many times.
Lie.

>Read teh thread.
Where in the thread? Why do you think lying is a good tactic? It just destroys your credibility.

>>14829452
The scale of your graph is hundreds of thousands of years and doesn't even show current warming as a comparison.

>>14826223
>durr 1 degree small!
It usually takes thousands of years for the climate to warm 1 degree, moron.

>after a period that was known as a Little Ice Age
So you think the Little Ice Age was cooling of 1 degree and this is just the rebound? Because that's false. Do you even have a point?

>>14794102
Temperature reconstruction from all ice cores, tree rings, and other proxies show it was not global. Do you have an actual argument or are you just cherrypicking examples?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34759364/