/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9452172
>backplot fitted polynomial curves to ~1900
>linear still reasonably close fit, some divergence
>2nd, 4th, 6th rapidly diverge from actual temperature record
>BUT, BUT, THERE'S NO REASON TO TREAT THE LINEAR TREND AS MEANINGFUL
deniers are inadvertent self-parody.

>>8720365
>let's use an arbitrary scaling factor when displaying two entirely different graphs on the same axes, so it looks like they're following disparate trends
here's the same graph, only with the emissions axis rescaled. oops, now it suddenly fits the temperature curve pretty nicely! remember, both scalings are equally valid.

>>8675762
>>>8675699 (You)
>>Translation: I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures.
>It's like you're incapable of reading. I'll just repeat it until you decide to act like an adult and accurately describe my argument:
>CO2 increases warming and warming increases CO2. In the past, warming was initiated by increased solar radiation from changes in orbital eccentricity, per the Milankovich cycle...
>>BUT And the rate of temperature change increases before the rate of CO2 change increases; pic related.
Repeat: You can't show a graph (with enough resolution) to show CO2 increasing before temperature. Which is why you didn't.

>What your graph does is detrend the data, removing the long term warming and the long term increase of CO2. So it can't tell us anything about the relationship between global warming and the increase in CO2. The only thing it shows is the random short term variation of AMO and the evaporated CO2 related to it. But you already know this you disingenuous fuck.
Idiot boy, This shows a clear causal relation. Namely change in temperature discrete derivative before change in CO2 concentration discrete derivative. If CO2 drove temps, the direction would be the exact opposite. And Idiot Boy, the AMO has a high correlation with global temperatures.

Now if CO2 was driving temperatures, the graph of the discrete derivative of CO2 would be shaped like a graph of CO2 flux. Pic related. BUT ITS NOT. Its nothing but a bit of noise.

PS Where's that graph of CO2 increase prior to temperature increase? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

>>8668583
oops

>>8617836
>lol I drew some lines on a graph to try and cherry pick intervals that confound the overall trend
you say that graph shows that CO2 doesn't drive temperature change? I say you're full of beans, and of ruder substances.

I've taken the liberty of rescaling the CO2 emissions trend along the y-axis. note how nicely the big sustained warming trend coincides with the sudden increase in CO2 (with a slight lag, naturally).
you can draw on graphs? so can I, fucko. :^)