/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8620471
>>8620476
I'm going to leave aside the massive and unsupported allegations of tampering and cut to the meat of your claim.
according to you, fluctuations in solar activity are the primary driver of warming and cooling. as evidence for this, you claim that old temperature reconstructions (without adjustments for known measurement biases, or as you prefer, """untampered""") fit nicely with solar activity trends.
>>8620471 shows a temperature peak at 1939, followed by a steady decline until 1970
>>8620476 shows a solar irradiance peak at 1948, followed by a steady decline until 1965
IF TSI controls global temperature, how is it that the earth started cooling a whole decade before TSI dropped? And how did the Earth continue to cool for five whole years even while TSI climbed and climbed? Can you explain that?
See, this is why simply looking at graphs isn't enough. One must actually READ graphs.

>>8620480
>100-year warming trend
>broken up by two decades of cooling with a 5-year spike of warming in the middle
>zOMG GLOBAL COOLING
again, it's important to know how to read graphs

>>8620486
>He's saying that in the long run (since the end of the ice age) the earth is warming. Something almost no one disputes.
No, he's saying that in the medium term (scale of decades to centuries) the earth is warming. You're thinking of scales from tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

>>8620490
>CONCENTRATION OF THE AERSOLS. (the latter knowledge is mostly speculative.)
...are you aware that they directly measured aerosol effects on atmospheric opacity? I mean, it says so right in there.