/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11601062
>nope, it is you who are lying
Your own image proves I'm not and you are. This is really pathetic. What do you think the numbers are and what is your source?

>the absolute state
Not an argument. Let's try it this way: what is "high CO2?"

You missed some questions:

Why are you comparing an increase that happened in a certain period to the trend over that period instead of comparing trend to trend or increase to increase?

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

Why are you lying about [there being no warming trend] something anyone can easily look up and that you can even see in your own graph?

Why are you lying about such a basic fact [the greenhouse effect]?

Who said [the concentration of gas is the Earth's temperature dial]?

>>10231228
>>10231225
>>10231224

>>4158926

Yep. Basically we have disturbed the natural carbon cycle, and it can't deal with the change because it's happening too fast.

>>3143657

Anthropogenic as fuck

Check out these ice ages. The rate of temperature change was about 0.1 degrees Celsius per century. Current global surface temperature change is about 1.0 per century, and assuming business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions this figure will increase dramatically in the twenty-second century. Temperatures are very likely higher than at any point in at least the past 1300 years, and possibly warmer than peak Holocene and peak MIS5 temperatures.

Of course the paleoclimate record is not the only way we can tell, but it's commonly mentioned in mass media and documentaries because of the nice clear graphs you get out of it. People tend to get put off by explanations about the HITRAN molecular spectroscopy database and isotopic ratios of C12/C13 atoms etc etc.

>>3143664

>80% coincidental

pffffffffffft

>>2966040

You meant to post this picture, which shows antropogenic rise nicely:

>>2296155
My photo shop is terrible, so I'm not sure if i'll be able to superimpose these.