/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10258984
>I think that proves my point. dT is not well predicted by dCO2 for that data.
It clearly is over the long term.

>dCO2 is about constant, dT is jumping around all over the place.
The jumping around is just short term circulation effects. You're missing the forest for the trees. Look at the trend.

>It's technically exponential but pretty close to linear, pic related, CO2 = k+Aexp(ct) where c is close to 0.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emission. Look at the total greenhouse forcing.

>"climatologists say it's bad" is a sociological fact not a scientific one.
I already posted a link to the IPCC's report on the impacts, which shows the scientific research. Your attempt to ignore the mountain of evidence does not make it go away.

>Orders of magnitude more that what's already in the air per degree of warming, a logarithmic response.
Where is that ratio coming from? The response is already logarithmic in all climate models. You're just ignoring that emissions are not linear.

>>9414770
>Hurr durr it's not exponential because it looks linear
Moron, do you not realize exponential curves approach a linear slope? If CO2 concentration is doubling every 25 years, you get exactly the curve in your pic. And if it's not exponential, how is radiative forcing increasing linearly?

>>9414545
>>This is incredibly misleading
>>This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature
not an argument
You cut out the argument and ignored it. Why do you keep misrepresenting sources and your opponent?

>then explain pic related. pre industrial perid co2 kept increasing for thousands of years while average temperature was in decline
I find this argument very odd since you are using temperatures which were determined from the GHG gas composition in an Arctic ice core and comparing it to the CO2 composition in an Antarctic core, and trying to use the lack of correlation between the two to argue that CO2 does not cause temperature increase. But the Arctic ice core temperatures are completely based on the assumption that CO2 means warmer temperatures. So your argument does not support your conclusion.
And the lack of correlation between the two can be explained by the fact that the Arctic is not the same as the Antarctic.

>but are they still increasing exponentially to compensate for the less than logarithmic nature?
The change in GHG forcing has remained linear, so it must be compensating.

>so the data was modified. how do they know how to "correct" the satelite data?
Because they know the source of error is a specific orbital decay.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

>if the data was modified it loses all credibility
If the data is not modified it loses all credibility, since there is a known error. Are you trying to make logical arguments, or will you just spout anything nonsensical in order to support your belief?

>false. even ICPP says ocean level rise is expected to be around 20 cm for the 21th century, which is negligible.
This doesn't respond to what I said. The graph's timescale does not have the resolution to show current sea level rise. It's another cut off graph.