/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8615758
>>Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.2C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be the primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

>Did you even bother to read the paper you linked?
How wonderfully authoritarian of you. Hansen speculates at the end of the paper that the lack of observed CO2 driven warming is due to aerosols.

That buddy, is speculation. Not to mention awfully convenient. Unlike you, I don't deal in speculation. Hansen admitted that there was no evidence of CO2 driven warming. That is the fact that you so desperately want to ignore.

Sorry that I don't equate speculation with reality. And sorry that there was a huge uptick in anthropogenic CO2 in 1940, which led to 30 years of global cooling. Quite the contradiction, isn't it?
>>8617836


So your "rational" interpretation is:
warming temps => Climate Change is TRUE!
cooilng temps => aerosols or whatever, Climate Change is TRUE!

And what was that you said?
>I'm a shitposter in every thread, my arguments are consistently debunked
ftfy

You must be really butthurt.