/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11601135
https://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Rapporter/TR/2018/DMIRep18-04.pdf

>>11601170
>this is semantics.
So you get the same result if you compare trend to trend? No, both trends are decreasing over 10000 years.

>the trends to trends or the increases to increases aren't correlated.
LOL, they are the same.

>there is no warming >>11600947
I already showed you there is here >>11601041 and nothing you posted shows a lack of warming.

>you are misrepresenting the greenhouse effect as the mechanism behind the warming of the earth. The greenhouse effect talks about gasses ability to absorb heat this not a model of the earths climate
The greenhouse effect involves the ability of gasses to absorb *and emit* heat, and is a necessary part of any model of the Earth's climate. It's funny how you accuse me of misrepresenting the greenhouse effect while you're the one doing it.

>The idea that the temperature is a function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is your belief.
No, it's not my belief. The temperature is a function of more than just the concentration of CO2. CO2 simply happens to be the most dominant factor at this time. This can be seen in my post here >>11600553

You're a one trick pony, can you do anything else but misrepresent facts and your opponent's argument? You know, like actually presenting evidence of your claims?

You missed some questions:

Are you doing this on purpose or are you just parroting some else's lie?

What do you think the numbers [CO2 concentrations] are and what is your source?

Let's try it this way: what is "high CO2?"