/sci/ - Science & Math

OP please delete your post immediately. It is impossible for sea level cities to be destroyed by 2100. You are perpetrating the erroneous claim that CO2 level and temperature raise nearly simultaneously and by doing so you are invariably claiming that we should doubt the veracity of the graph produced by Shakun et al. (2012). This graph shows the only truth: after a natural event increased global CO2 concentration levels (yellow) approximately 18 000 years ago, we can see that global temperature increased after a lag of approximately 1000-2000 years (blue). The increase was NOT simultaneous. You can see for yourself the distance between the yellow squares and the continuous blue line. Any CO2 released by human activity MUST cause a corresponding increase in temperature that lags significantly behind and occurs after 1000 years minimum, following the same natural mechanism of the impact of CO2 on the environment so perfectly established by Shakun et al. (2012). Therefore CO2 released in the year 2021 cannot destroy us in 2100.

Incidentally, your WRONG claim that CO2 level and temperature raise together without significant lag is identical to what we can see on the red line of the Shakun graph. This line represents Antarctic ice core records and this data speak lies, at least when used to predict global temperature variation. It claims that CO2 level and temperature raise nearly simultaneously, a claim that is demonstrably false because it contradicts the Shakun graph which speaks the truth. OP, please do not spread fake science that can be used as a weapon by climate deniers to argue that Antarctic ice core records faithfully represent the relationship between CO2 and global temperature variation. Every aspect of climate change denialism is dangerous and is no different than global scale ecoterrorism.

>>12734003
>Where is the evidence of a positive feedback? All I see is temperature increasing the amount of CO2.
it's pretty obvious when you look at global temperature and not just polar. However the real reason is because of simple physics, we don't think CO2 increases temperatures only because we see it happening in the past (we do) we know CO2 increases temperatures because we can measure the decreased outgoing long wave radiation, reduced temperatures in the stratosphere etc.
When you put a blanket on something you don't look at charts and graphs to try to figure out if heat causes blankets because it's pretty easy to figure out the effect the blanket is having.

>>11608560
it's not though

>>8873005
>Younger Dryas
Not even close. Global temperature rises by 1C over 1000 years.

You might be thinking of Greenland temperature reconstruction in ice cores during the younger dryas where LOCAL temperature increases by 8 degrees in 100 years. If you want to talk about Arctic temperature, then compare apples to apples, since 1980s the Arctic has risen 3 degrees C by itself, on track following the abrupt change during the Younger Dryas.

The difference is that Younger Dryas warming was a seesaw effect, where northern hemisphere warm and southern hemisphere cools (coinciding with Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR) - Google it) while the current AGW warming is a global warming.

Okay next, what else do you got?

>>8675463
>CO2 always lags temperature changes
not over the past 20 kyr, pic related
>>8675699
>I can't show you a single graph where CO2 goes up before temperatures
pic related

>>8675446
>CO2 always lags temperature changes
except when it doesn't, such as the past TWENTY THOUSAND YEARS
>https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Shakun%20et%20al..,%202012,%20Nature.pdf

also what >>8675780 said