/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12299504
Not an argument, try again.

>>11600947
>Past 10,000 years have largest increase in CO2
This shows the largest increase is in the last 100 years, which is only 1% of the last 10000 years. What is the point of making such an inaccurate statement?

>High CO2 concentrations are correlated with the beginning of cooling
This shows increasing CO2 concentrations are correlated with warming in Greenland, a peak is reached and then both CO2 and temperatures decrease slowly. So saying high CO2 concentrations are correlated with cooling is highly misleading. In reality, this process, called the Milankovich cycle, is controlled by changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity. According to the Milankovich cycle, we should be slowly cooling and CO2 should be slowly decreasing over the next tens of thousands of years. Instead, we are pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing rapid warming. Everything you've posted shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue.

>But there is no warming trend
There is a warming trend, over the last 100 years. This can be seen in the GISP site temps you posted. Your last image doesn't have a trendline so it says nothing about a trend or lack of trend.

>>11217127
Oh and I forgot to educate you about Milankovitch cycles. Interglacial warming (the "up" part) occurred 10000 years ago. We are now in the cooling phase when CO2 should be going down. Instead it's rapidly increasing on top of the cycle's peak. So your contention that this is part of the natural cycle is idiotically wrong.