/sci/ - Science & Math

Note how absurdly smooth the OP graph is. Things can fit however one wishes when they're entirely made up

>>11177130
How can you explain that climate was changing even before age of industrialization ?

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c.950 to c.1250.[1] It was likely[2] related to warming elsewhere[3][4][5] while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[6]

The period was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic and elsewhere termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that climatic effects other than temperature were important.[7][8]

It is thought that between c.950 and c.1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th and 21st centuries that the Northern Hemisphere experienced higher temperatures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

>>11126751
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>11120992
>And?
Those ice core samples are wrong too. Deniers conveniently select only those that fit into their narrative. Aggregate studies show different behaviour.

>>11097288
>Those three 100 percent physical facts and measurements combined mean that climate change is man made and very real.

but why was the earth already in a warming period?

are you really telling me that the world wouldn't be warmer if industrialization didn't happen?

notice how in pic related the current warming trend started in 1800, and also notice how on other charts the dishonest science liers try to pawn off the 1800s and early 20th century as part of the little ice age!?