/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8617998
>Protip: It doesn't affect global temperature in any significant margin whatsoever
Nice conjecture you got there, care to support that with EVIDENCE? Fucking retard, even the most popular of the climate skeptics / deniers do not say this horse-shit. Well, at least the scientifically trained ones don't.

Do I have to do research for you, are you a child? You have the entire Internet at your fingertips. You could easily answer these questions yourself:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
Read up on climate sensitivity and gain some understanding about HOW atmospheric gasses like CO2 cause warming by the greenhouse effect.

We have correlated CO2 with temperature changes in the atmosphere using ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

When looking at warnings from paleoclimate:
>In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

> if the world suddenly octupled CO2 in the atmosphere global temperatures would rise ~3 degrees Celsius.
Once again, conjecture, no evidence presented aside from your shitposts, and what you say is simply not true, it's lies.
Current CO2 in the atmosphere is 400ppm, if you are seriously suggesting that if you octupled that to 3200ppm (over half that is was in the Cambrian), that warming would only be 3 degrees? Nigger, do you not understand that the current trend of increasing to ~600ppm by the end of the century will result in a warming anywhere between 2 to 4+ degrees, with some estimates up to 8C?

Do you not understand radiative forcings? Do you not understand the greenhouse effect?