/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9822774
>Where is the evidence that co2 causes an increase in temperature?
That's literally what the greenhouse effect is. Not only do we have a shittonne of historical data showing the connection between temperature and CO2, and the basic physics that predicts the relationship, but we can directly measure the increase in downward IR being emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere.

>Why is this sample privileged over the much larger and more consistent sample size that indicates that we are heading for an ice age?
Because the physical conditions in those time periods are different,
Just because I have 4 years of data showing my house stays between 10C and 25C doesn't mean I can safely ignore the last two minutes of 80C and smoke.

>>9822809
>How do you know the amount of co2 we're emitting is enough to cause significant changes in climate?
Because we can measure that

>>9822979
>If you were really using your brain you'd know that depending on the temperature the ocean is a major player in releasing CO2
The ocean is currently a net sink of CO2

>Temperature leads CO2 production
It has in some historical cases. That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

>single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs.
That's simply wrong
The famous Mann hockeystick graph is done using annual temperatures over the last thousand years. The change in trend is absolutely in the data, and not a product of the processing. You should at least skim the paper before discussing what's in it.
Also that's nearly 30 years old. Newer studies are considerably more accurate.

>They also take the average temperature of the little ice age period of the 1960s
The "little ice age" was somewhere in the 16th to 19th centuries, not the 1960s.
Also, the LIA was a series of local phenomenon, spread out over large period. The global impact wasn't that large, and is absolutely dwarfed by modern warming.