/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12760294
>So we know the earth is slowly getting warmer
Not slowly.

>and that humans have (at worst) sped it up
There is nothing to "speed up." We would be cooling without massive human emissions.

>We also know that a volume of water in a vacuum will “boil until it freezes.
Earth's water is not in a vacuum.

>Is there any reason NOT to believe that the earth gets hot and cold in cyclical periods of millennia?
It does, but that has nothing to do with current warming.

>so why has science been so adversely against the idea that the planet heats and cools cyclically?
It hasn't.

If you have no clue about what you're talking about, don't talk.

>>12744289
Global average temperature returning to the pre industrial baseline

>>12732541
>Why doesn’t this graph extend back to when the Vikings were farming Greenland
We all know Vikings had thermometers, but (((they))) won't allow you to see the data.

Also, sea level rise due to ice sheets melting during interglacial warming must mean that all sea level rise and warming is natural. Just ignore that interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago and residual melting due to that warming ended 2000 years ago. If you don't include modern sea level measurements in the graph then they don't exist.

>>12714919
>no argument
Imagine posting this.

>>12709345

>>12697388

>>12614917
here ya go bud

>>12581854
>because guess what, before every new glacial period starts over you get a gradual global temperature increase
No, that's what occurs at the beginning of the interglacial period. That occurred about 10000 years ago. The temperature then slowly decreases back into a glacial period. Instead, we are warming at a rate 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. There is nothing natural or cyclical about this.

>>12581858
That's fine, but your graph doesn't have temperatures past the 1800s, and it's not even global temperature.

>>12437685
not really no

>>12398855
Fake climatologist, fake graph.

>>12300378
sure bud, keep telling yourself that.
by the way, can you help me find the 300 B.C ice age?

>>12276055

>>12271505
>listen i don't care about your mumbo jumbo about ice ages
LOL, you're the one that brought them up. Nice projection.

>that is your assumption and not a fact.
It is a scientific fact. You have no argument.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

>>12190963
It already ended, our climate is no longer being controlled by the Milankovich cycle. We are not in a glacial or interglacial period, we are in an anthropic period.

>>12165259
>natural climate variability
explain. what natural forgings are currently stronger than CO2?

>>12152612
>Even if man made climate change is real
It is.

>the effect on the planet is small as evidenced by historical fluctuations in the earth's environment.
It's 15 times faster warming than interglacial warming, which until now was the fastest warming mankind experienced.

Why do retards make claims about topics they have no understanding in.

>>12077363
>we just come out of a small ice age from 14th to mid 19th century.
The "Little Ice Age" is not a small ice age, that's just a name. We are still in an ice age, the same one that's been going on for millions of years. The LIA was very mild compared to current warming and doesn't explain anything. See pic related and >>12076616.

You are probably confusing glacial periods with ice ages. Within the current ice age, there is a very predictable cycle of cold periods and warm periods called glacials and interglacials, a cycle determined by the effects of Earth's orbital eccentricity and precession. The warming in between glacial and interglacials is the fastest warming humans had experienced until now. We are currently in an interglacial period that began about 10000 years ago. So we should be slowly cooling back into a glacial period. Instead we are warming at a rate 15 times as fast as interglacial warming, on top of the warming that already occurred 10000 years ago. All of this is basic climatology climatology you should already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>>12065925
>The end of the interglacial about 11.5kya happened so fast it's literally remembered as a global flood myth.
LMAO, this is the science board, not Ancient Aliens. Pseudoscientific comparative mythology tells us nothing about the magnitude of warming. Luckily we have actual data, which shows the last interglacial warming at its fastest was about 1 degree C per millenia. Current warming is 1 degree C per 60 years.

>Stop drinking kool-aid, retard and learn something about geologic time.
Nice projection, kook.

>This is an assumption on your part.
No, it's not. The climate has followed a very predictable pattern over at least the past 800000 years, and current warming is completely against that pattern. And speaking of assumptions, what do you call your claim that flood myths are about interglacial warming?

>Nobody is actually sure what causes ice ages or their glaciation-interglacial cycles.
Wrong, retard.

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

>There you are correct, but I've already said that.
Them how is it similar to interglacial warming?

>I didn't say it did.
You said we warm like this at the end of every single glacial stage of the Pleistocene. We don't warm like this. You said the only thing odd about this warming is that it's occurring after an interglacial has already set in. It's not the only odd thing.

>I don't care about humans.
Then why do you care about the interglacial being cold?

>>11817972
What started?

>>11789345
>you don’t have to do stupid deceptive shit like create a vague survey which counts “don’t know” and “more research needed” as a Yes and then claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans.
Which survey did this?

>If your data and science are legit you don’t go around bullying and demonizing people who have brought up data from 10k years ago that have shown almost similar reduction in ice sheets and rise in global temperatures
Warming 10K years ago was an order of magnitude slower than the warming today. We also know that warming was part of the Milankovitch cycle caused by Earth's orbital eccentricity. According to that cycle we should slowly be cooling but instead we're rapidly warming. Do you have any clue what you're taking about?

>you should atleast have the courtesy to take it into account and try to differentiate that data from the modern data and have a somewhat workable theory to prove that the climate is being fucked by humans.
Please explain how climatologists have failed to differentiate Milankovitch cycles from greenhouse gas emissions. You are demanding an explanation that has already existed for decades.

>Not to mention how westerners want India and China to go back to stone ages while they are worst polluters on the planet and use 20x as much resources as an average Chinese and Indian
LOL, I hear the exact opposite all the time, that global warming is a hoax because only Western nations are going to be taxed while third world countries are the "real" problem. Make up your minds, conspiracy schmucks.

>It’s just a political propaganda game
Then it should be easy for you to show how the science is flawed. But you don't even understand the science to begin with.

>>11718343
Anyone who isn't retarded.

>>11685014
The interglacial warming was 10000 years ago. We should be slowly cooling, not rapidly warming on top of the interglacial warming.

>>11663001
Pic related.

>>11600786
>High CO2 concentrations is correlated with the beginning of cooling
Where?

And how do you avoid the fact that high CO2 concentrations are causative of high temperatures via the greenhouse effect?

>he largest known increase of co2 has happened over the past 10k years and the temperature is in a down trend over the past 10k years
This is incredibly misleading. The largest increase of CO2 has happened in only the last 100 years and the temperature is in an extreme upward trend over the last 100 years. Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase? The only purpose of comparing the increase to the trend is to create a spurious lack of correlation. Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?