/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12267462
fuck off idiot

>>12161536
>Fluctuations in heat intensity from the sun
Solar intensity has been decreasing for decades and is near a grand minimum so that doesn't explain anything. Solar variation is much too small to explain such rapid warming anyway.

>combined with the Earth's axial precession
It's going in the completely wrong direction, like the sun. We are in the cooling phase of the Milankovich cycle. Also, this is only noticeable over thousands of years, it has no relevance to current warming.

>create a cyclical effect of warming and cooling ages seen throughout the Earth's geological history,
According to that cycle we should be cooling. Did you even bother to check the bullshit you're parroting?

>>12059850
>Global Warming (AKA climate change, whatever the fuck that is) is based on fraudulent data which has been exposed exhaustively.
Like what?

>Earths climate is driven by the sun
Please explain pic related then.

>Co2 is a trace gas
So trace amounts of something can't have a large impact?

>and has no impact on climate
The greenhouse effect is a consequence of fundamental physics and chemistry, and can be directly observed:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>and follows heating and cooling not the other way around.
It's both.

Why do AGW deniers constantly lie?

>There is perfect correlation between sunspot cycles, solar procession and galactic procession and earths fluctuating temperature cycles as evidenced by ice ages.
LOL, current warming is completely uncorrelated with the Milankovich cycles you're referring to. According to those cycles we should be in the slow cooling phase after the interglacial warming that occurred about 10000 years ago. Instead we are warming on top of the interglacial warming, at a rate an order of magnitude faster than that warming. So you're competent wrong about the correlation, in both direction and magnitude.

>>12037140
>1. Showing CO2 and temperature on a geological timescale is relevant because it shows the relationship has no correlation.
This doesn't respond to what I said. How is lack of correlation on geological timescales relevant to global warming?

>Short term correlations tell us nothing.
Global warming is a long term trend. Smaller timescale than geological timescale doesn't mean "short term."

>A lack of correlation proves there is no relationship between temperature and CO2.
It doesn't, as I already explained. You haven't controlled for other factors, so this tells you nothing. Not to mention that the greenhouse effect is directly observed.

>The graph is based on fossil evidence
This doesn't respond to anything I said.

>Global warming is empirically observable because the UN will only fund scientists who affirm Global Warming.
The UN doesn't fund thermometers, my special friend.

>56 million years ago the earth was 10 degrees Celsius hotter.
And? 56 million years ago, humans didn't exist.

>Earth has been cooling because the Sun is slowly dying
But that's wrong, retard. The Sun is getting hotter as it ages. And this has no affect on the timescale we're talking about anyway.

>The temperature of Earth shows strong correlations to the solar period.
Pic related.

You have utterly failed to argue against anything I said.

>>11913028
Apparently when solar radiation decreases the temperature goes up. Fascinating way of driving climate change.

>>11894935

>>11892308

>>11849683
The latter.

>hurr big thing do thing durr

>>11796374

>>11617220
ta-daah

>>11306393

>>11288903

>>11227402
>because of the sun
nope