/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15876725
Shameless deflection. Answer the arguments from the other post.
And yes, it is a large spike when CO2 rose by 80 ppm in 15k years in this interglacial period and we’ve increased the CO2 by ~150 ppm in 100 years

>>15740218
I’ve already posted specifics, you just chose to ignore it. There have been plenty of revisions on dynamics, orbital influences, proxy reconstructions,ocean dynamics and plenty others. Not even two months ago there were major changes in the interpretation of shipping vessel ability to seed clouds in the ocean.
The basic concept rapid warming due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere is based on simple observed phenomena. As I said, that’d be comparable to saying the earth is flat.

>>15685925
I don’t know why you keep talking about the carbon cycle as if it wasn’t evident that anthropogenic emissions weren’t drastically faster than in the last million years.
Funny how you pivot to talk about oyster permits when confronted with the reality that coral reefs all over the world have been devastated by warming temperature

>>15565698
>>15569282
>>15570178
It’s the pre industrial CO2 level at the peak of the interglacial period before anthropogenic emissions

>>15518086
Even in the fastest onsets of the interglacial periods it took tens of thousands of years for the CO2 to rise by 100 ppm but emissions have risen it by 100 ppm in 100 years

>>15315149
What did you think this would show exactly?

>>15168471
>Vladovystok co2 ice core chart is also telling of this
What are you on about? Ice core CO2 doesn’t go back to the Cretaceous.
Even then the planet was under a completely different oceanic and continental configuration they life evolved and grew in. Rapid climate change now where the biosphere has adapted to a different climate pits it in danger.

>>15065006
Hurr

>>14960341
If you don’t know anything about this subject don’t comment on it. Radiative forcing due to increased CO2 greenhouse effect has been measured with satellite and ground based instruments, that’s the first data I posted but apparently you can’t even read the axes. We are indeed warming faster than before as you see in >>14959967 where the warming of the ramp up of the interglacial period is 1000-2000 years per degree of warming at its faster until we get to modern times. This is also visible on the ice core record but apparently you got confused by the scale.
The CO2 lag paper ignores basic evidence of quantitative characterization of the new CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s an intrinsic property of CO2 to radiate in the IR.
You need to learn about this before you go off, since the charts I’ve posted have all the necessary information about what they show. As I said the EPICA core does not include modern temperatures because the snow has not been compacted enough to allow that kind of measurement. Recent snow and firn does however store bubbles that can be analyzed for atmospheric composition and do actually record the isotopic values and quantity of anthropogenic CO2.

Why is it always the same guy who posts shitty meme images and refuses to provide arguments against data and just denies everything?

>>14615803
>nuh uh I don’t believe you
Now this is some shill retardation refusing to accept simple data without providing evidence or arguments himself. You know the changes in the CO2 forcing have been measured and monitored for more then 20 years right?

This shows the CO2 levels by year for the last 800,000 years. The claim that the increased incidence of heatwaves and drought is just a coincidence is garbage.