/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8872416
>Figure 1,2 and 6 pertains to geologic scale estimated temperature change as you see the axis is in million of years.
What's concerning about AGW is the rate of change, the Earth has never warm faster definitively in the last 800ka of ice core records, the maximum extent of which high res paleoclimate data is available. We're even pumping greenhouse gas/hydrocarbon into the atmosphere at faster rate than PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum), the tip of figure 1 where the earth was at its warmest in the past 65 million years.

>figure 3 is deceptive because it only shows last glacial maximum - current interglacial sea level change
Of course sea level rise as the north american ice sheet melts over the transition between interglacial - glacial state. However we're now moving BEYOND interglacial state. Why don't you plot sea level reconstruction from the last interglacial and show that our current sea level is already beyond the usual quarternary interglacials?

>figure 4
That figure is straight up from WUWT. It cherrypicked balloon and satellite dataset that has been debunked over and over again. Do you really think there's only 4 balloon datasets and 2 satellite datasets available with terrible resolution? Why not plot Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT, or NOAA surface station data against model projection?

>figure 5
The poster claims that the measurement techniques between ice cores and atmospheric monitoring is different. If anything, since releasing gas from ice cores involves an extra step, one should expect that gas measurements from ice cores have higher blanks and biased towards the higher side than atmospheric measurement, which goes counter against the poster's claim.

Also we've shown as in pic related, that in high accumulation site like Law Dome, Antarctica you can splice the CO2 record in the ice core right into Mauna Loa data.

What else do you got bitch? I'll BTFO every pasta you have all day

>>8853000
>CO2 hasn't increased. Pre-industrial age levels were about 500 ppm; now with factories are at 380.

Ice core /sci/entist here, this is the most retarded claim I've ever seen; absolutely not true. CO2 at preindustrial was about 280ppm; see pic related, CO2 from Law Dome ice core, Antarctica. Here's the data you can plot it yourself
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html

You're spamming links about a bunch of studies that doesn't support your claim at all. For example here

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v315/n6014/abs/315045a0.html
>A detailed knowledge of the CO2 increase since preindustrial time is a prerequisite for understanding several aspects of the role of CO2, such as the contribution of biomass burning to the CO2 increase and the sensitivity of climate to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Estimates of the preindustrial CO2 concentration are in the range 250–290 p.p.m.v
It fucking says it right there that the preindustrial CO2 was around 280 ppm.

I don't know where are you getting these pastas, you must be severely missing some brain cells

>>6772014
Nah bro, it's us.
Sorry.