/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10302749
>Average CO2 levels pre-Industrial Revolution was about 280 ppm. Now we have above 400 ppm. So almost 43% increase in CO2 levels over 140 years produced less than 1 degree Celsius difference in average global termperature.
This is funny. If you look at global temperatures in the last 600,000 years you'll see the fastest warming before now was interglacial warming of 4-7 degrees C over 5000 years or so. Which is faster, 1 degree over 140 years or 4-7 degrees over 5000 years? Did you look at the numbers?

>Now look back at UAH Satellite-Based Temperature (ver. 6) where you can clearly see that after hot 2016 we had lower temperatures at both 2017 and 2018 - even though CO2 production increased in those years.
Why UAH? Because they haven't made the fix to the major error in the diurnal correction yet, unlike RSS. You're blatantly cherrypicking flawed data. But let's ignore all that and focus on your claim. This is a red herring since the temperature change from year to year is largely determined by the stmospheric circulation, not CO2. CO2 dominates the longer term, decadal trend, while atmospheric circulation provides annual variation around that trend. So focusing on changes between a few years completely misses the point.

>Forget about causation, first show me where is correlation?
The correlation is clear as day, but this argument makes no sense anyway. Why is correlation more important than causation when the entire issue is whether CO2 causes global warming? Correlation is merely a proxy for causation, and doesn't necessarily exist when there is causation because other factors can hide the correlation.

You are severely ignorant of the topic you are trying to discuss. Try reading a basic climatology textbook, or at least looking to see if your arguments have been debunked before making them: https://www.skepticalscience.com/