/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10795812
It's not the sun, we're on the downswing for solar intensity. Why don't you post the whole graph BTW?

>>10761429
It's not. Solar intensity is dropping

>>10712574
We've already been experiencing a solar minimum the planet has continued to warm. Things are going to start heating up even faster. As for the ozone layer it's recovered quite well after the Montreal protocol. You are somewhat correct about water vapor in contrails trapping heat. It's called the greenhouse effect but the effects from contrails are tiny compared to CO2.

>>10697337

>>10681848
what did he mean by this post?

>>10670955
ooooops

>>10462300
Lmao nice try

>>9905556

I wonder how much the sun actually has to do with temperature?

>>9162890

>>8788692
Ignorance
>>8788694
and stupidity

>>8700580
>I personally think it's because of the sun.
It's obviously not. Firstly because the sun's not doing anything that should be producing trends on the ~100year scale, and secondly because of stratospheric cooling - If the Sun was warming the Earth, the top of the atmosphere would also warm up.

>when my cousin was a kid, it was 'global cooling' literally. They were worried about another ice age.
Maybe you read some shitty news articles about that, but global cooling was never the majority view among climatologists. We've understood the basics of greenhouse gas forcing for a long time now. Also, "scientists were wrong in the past, so we can't know anything" is a complete failure of an argument.

>when I was a kid it was 'global warming' and now they've had to change the name because of being busted, to 'climate change'
That never happened. The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have always been used more-or-less interchangeably.

>of course, the climate is ALWAYS changing.
What a dumb statement; People worried about AGW are worried about the scale, rate, and effects of the changes.