What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're currently seeing, change is a natural process?

What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're currently seeing, change is a natural process?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zmPzbZVUp3g
sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7
nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227
journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/another-half-done-press-release-wheres-the-science-citation/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

checked.
none.

nothing?

...

the rate, magnitude and the spatial characteristics of the observed warming are simply inconsistent with any known natural processes

and the response of the Earth system might therefore be similarly unprecedented, which makes the phenomenon all the more dangerous

I wonder if there are any good climate change debates between intelligent people. I cannot judge all of this by myself because i'm not competent enough to discern what is real and what is made-up or adjusted.

And the reason i don't trust "muh 98%" is because this issue became too politicized, and when there's politics involved you stop just believing scientists.

A debate would sorta give me an indication on who of the debaters is more smarter and makes more logical arguments. This is the only way that i think would work for me bar investing years of getting a phd.

Climate change is real you fucking cucks, and we are even facing a new problem. Sand. Yes fucking Sand.

Every year 19 billion tons of sand get used up for building.

And no, not desert sand, because it has too smooth edges to be used in building because of the wind, only sea sand. This is causing immense problems in the flora and fauna, also it threatens whole islands to sink, because sand is a natural barrier for water, and if there is no more sand on the beaches, the ocean takes soil from the islands.

This could even get more worse than actual rising sea levels.

All the people who are investigating climate science are only paid to research, what has been concluded to be, an existing phenomenon. It will be very difficult to find an iconoclast insider who will risk his career to support the opposite conclusion.

You can't really. All the "evidence" you get is just graphs and numbers, all of which could easily be forged. Everyone has some sort of ulterior motive, and going by all of human history, most of those people probably aren't telling you their side to "save the earth" or "save the economy" like they want you to believe. I suppose it comes down to what you as an individual want. If you want more resources for yourself and others, at possible cost of hastening the earth's demise, you shun climate science. If you want to prolong the Earth, at the possible cost of resources (the lack of may kill people in other ways), then you support it. I just don't see how else you can make a decision without learning all the shit and doing it yourself as you said.

the problem with live debates is that they are mostly determined by factors other than factual accuracy. Someone can easily "win" a debate by appearing as confident, charismatic and witty, regardless if what he says is 180° opposed to reality.

Do you know the source of your data and the way it was measured?

Pic related will give you an idea. The first 800k years were taken from vostok ice cores, at a very low resolution, then normalized across that resolution to produce pretty data points for the graph. The very last data point was taken not with CO2 trapped in ice but with direct measurement of the air, and was not normalized thousands of years.

So is it a comparison of CO2 levels or a comparison of measurement methods?

i'm in the mountains, and i'm under water right now.

what evidence is there that pumping billions of tons of combustion gasses into a thin layer of atmosphere has any effect?

hahahahahahahahaha

Svante Arrhenius figured it out on a napkin 100 years ago, but there is too much money to be made by the hannitys and limbaughs keeping the proles dumbed down

Now here is gisp2 ice core data, not normalized, at a high resolution

look at it you can see it rising.

youtube.com/watch?v=zmPzbZVUp3g

Another gisp2 graph

>I suppose it comes down to what you as an individual want
You've hit the nail on the head there. I'm all up for using renewable energy, taking care of the only planet we have, and ultimately i see that this future is the correct future to go for.

I just want the truth because i'm that autistic i guess. Even in understanding it, i would still support the "muh climate change is real" side of the argument, just for what it's underlying goal is.
Yeah i think I've seen enough of these confident and charismatic types to tell who is authentic.

Was wondering how anyone would fight the "consensus" and found this gem that just came out.
sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7

Absolutely 0 evidence.

Climate Hoaxers got BTFO when the UN panel got caught faking data to further their agenda.

The data points for this research ends in 1855, so it's not super relevant since we're discussing current climate change.

Temperature, especially since all of those data points are specifically for Greenland are going to be less accurate and more vulnerable to erroneous variability.

It's a decent point but has a lot of flaws in the data collection.

Climate change is real.

Man made climate change is a political cash grab.

and that's a "gem" why?

But we have evidence to support the notion that man-made climate change is real. Can you disprove it or have evidence that the current CO2 levels, land-ice/sea-ice, and temperature change are all natural occurrences?

this evidence.

the acceleration of the process is caused by human activity, but the end result will be the same

He makes the correlation between volcanic eruptions in Antarctica and ice shelf collapsing, which would make it a natural thing

take this shill shit to /sci
or, are you afraid of being laughed at like the dumbfuck you are?

in that case, people should read the papers before citing them, because the authors explicitly say that not only are these volcanoes not the cause of recent ice sheet disintegration (since the retreat is happening along the margins at the ice shelfs, calving fronts and grounding lines) but they also state they could even help to *stabilize* the ice sheet, since they act as "pinning points" in the bedrock that buttress the ice sheet and keep it from flowing faster

Are you retarded? The time axis on that picture is non-linear and compressed by a factor of 1000 compared to OP's plot. The two are not even remotely comparable.

Do you have an argument or just personal attacks?

what people have to realize about this graph (since it gets posted so incredibly often) is that there isn't a single definitive temperature or CO2 curve for the entire Phanerozoic.
I mean this graph doesn't even have an uncertainty envelope.

The only era that is known to a high degree of certainty is the Cenozoic. We can infer GAST from the stacked benthic oxygen isotope ratios recovered from ocean sediment cores and CO2 concentration from several independent proxies (notably the new boron/calcium ratios). And during the Cenozoic, temperature and CO2 track each other very closely.

In fact, even for times at which CO2 proxies give strange and sometimes contradictory signals, there is a strange case to say that the climatic changes are due to changes in the concentration of long-lived atmospheric constituents like CO2.

It's this crazy shit called science! Using ice core samples, we have temperature data going back 50,000 years

(strong*, not strange case)

for an idiot like you who can't understand that science isn't political?
kys, dumbfuck

Yeah that's some of the conclusion, but it also writes that it contributes to ice thinning and overall ice instability. I don't care about this either way but you only select the part that confirms your bias.

Climate change science is very political boy.

Just keep angrily lashing out because you have no proof of your statement.
We have reconstructed temperatures, but instrumental recording of temperature only started around 1650 as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.

How does this data refute the lack of correlation of Temp and CO2 concentration in the data plot you don't seem to like? You've just posted CO2 over time which isn't very convincing if your argument is CO2 concentration drives global temps.

None.

Why does every climate change denying post has to come from America? why is the most powerful nation in the planet also the most ignorant? how is that possible?

>science isn't political
It's not but how it is reported to the lay public certainly is.

>climate change denying
Nobody is claiming that the climate isn't changing. The argument being made is that a significant amount of the change in our climate isn't the result of human activity (aka the thing that has yet to be demonstrated using the scientific method). Once they can establish that causal link and demonstrate it through observably correct predictions using that theory I'm on board; until then it's fucking string theory as far as I'm concerned.

So far all I've got is, "Hey goy, buy an electric car that runs off the coal burning power grid."

>climate change science is political
>not real science
kys for being a dumbfuck lemming and polluting the genepool

so, if the fact that the one era for which we have the most precise, high-resolution proxy data shows a strong relationship between CO2 and temperature (not only in general trends but also singular climatic events like the Paleogene hyperthermals, the Eocene-Oligocene boundary or the Miocene climatic optimum), what am I supposed to show you that would be convincing?

It's not that I simply dislike the graph, I explicitly said that it's misleading in so far as it suggests that there is a single known and definitive temperature- and CO2 curve, which is completely false.

And I also pointed out that there is good reason to think that CO2 was the main paleoclimatic driver, even when CO2 proxies give divergent answers.

You know lemmings don't really run off of cliffs right? It was a Disney animal show where a guy off camera chased them off the cliff that started that meme junior.

>defends being a lemming
kek

absolutely none, we would have noticed if there was some natural reason the Co2 levels are so high i should hope

>strong relationship
Show a causal relationship and I'm on board. They've been working on this for over 20 years and haven't come up with a model that can generate accurate predictions using CO2 as the causative factor. I was on board when the climate concern trolling began in the late 90s but stopped believing the hype when they couldn't show causation or make accurate predictions.

nah, i just said you're an idiot that believes anything he's told. lemmings are pretty cool though

Correlation does not imply causation.

A control is needed to account for confounding variables.This is basic statistics.

Anthropogenic rate and magnitude have been seen before human emissions as recently as the last few hundred years. Most of the time you charlatans hide that by heavily smoothing historical plots - so such spikes are hidden from the gullible.

>>not real science
I never said anything about "real science"
What I meant was that the issue it important in politics right now.

But here you, still just calling me stupid with no proof of your claim.

The famous 97% figure is based on an acceptance criterion so loose it includes most sceptics.

>believes anything they're told
like a climate change shill
>projecting your character flaws onto others
kys, dumbfuck

There is nothing to indicate that we can annihilate humanity off the face of the earth by altering the climate. It is self mitigating. Increased warmth, a little. Cancer, perhaps. Even still, not death sentences. Total extinction?

Never going to happen. Climatologists, like so many "scientists", don't have a broad enough view. They stick to their vacuum packed data, which is ironically, extremely unscientific,

>no proof you're a dumbfuck
your posts are all the proof that's needed

The scam was revealed years ago.

What is Mars?

>any known natural processes
>known
I guess we know everything there is to know about climate. Shouldn't be too hard to build a workable model that can be evaluated for it's predictive value if we know all the inputs and outputs
>the majority of non-linear self-referential differential equations are not solvable.
Have a peek at the behavior of Xn+1=rXn(1-Xn) as r increases.

total extinction will happen no matter what we do.

mars never had life as far as we know, and the planet has almost no magnetosphere, exposing its atmosphere to the solar wind, thus having it blasted away over billions of years.

It doesn't make sense to compare data from a half-million-year timescale to weather in the 10 to 100 years around now. If that graph has 1000 pixels from left to right, each pixel would cover 500 years, right? Now, the people who made that graph *could* have plotted a range from lowest to highest temperature seen in each 500 year period (well, only *if* they had that much detailed data to begin with). But they have not because it's just a regular line graph. So what you're seeing is some kind of average or otherwise representative figure for each 500-year period. Any shorter fluctuations would disappear into that single figure. So, because it is a line graph, it cannot possibly be showing past events similar to the ones that are meant to have happened recently. In fact, it's worse than that. There's also a clear lack of any high-frequency noise in the graph. But if you look at more detailed graphs, say of the last 10,000 or 1000 years, you'll see it should be there. So this plot has been "smoothed". Most of the detail below about 2500 years has been killed off in my estimation. Except the spike on the right, which has been "glued on" without any smoothing. The whole thing is designed to mislead.

Mars had life, jews come from mars. Read the Torah.
It was a weakening of the atmosphere from the inside that led to solarwind damage being critical. Same shit we're doing.

The nigger has a point.

>sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7
No, man. You're the one who wants to influence policy. So you present your ONE GOOD argument. 100 weak ones won't cut it, because in any sufficiently complex domain, there are 100 weak argument for anything.

this is global average surface temperature for the Cenozoic
you can kind of overlay this curve in your mind with the CO2 concentration shown here you can see that not only does it match in the general trend (high and rising CO2 concentration, coinciding with high and rising temperatures until around 50 mya, followed by generally falling CO2 concentrations and falling temperatures), but you can also see distinctive excursions of CO2 for times of sudden climate change. For instance: PETM, the middle Eocene climate optimum and the Miocene climate optimum are all visible in the CO2 proxy-record as upticks in CO2 concentration.

But the importance of CO2 can also be demonstrated by simply looking at the other forcings: Neither changes in solar luminosity, nor the forcing from a difference in position of the continents is anywhere near strong enough to induce temperature changes of this magnitude.

What's the resolution on ice cores or whatever they used to get that data? I'm sure we can measure more precisely now. If a segment of an ice core can only measure an average of the past and future 50 years, then that'd be a natural low-pass filter.

Yeah, in the "hand-waving conjecture" section of the paper.

You don't know if CO2 is long-lived from the historical data. You're assuming that.

A better question is: can humans adapt to climate change? If no, then we should put heavy food sanctions on China until they get adequate environmental protections, threatening total war if necessary. We're all going to die anyway, so the risk of nuclear war is a chance we have to take.

China alone can bring us past the point of no return, no matter how carbon neutral the west becomes.

>poor translation & combining two separate quotes.
His statements meant to say in the article that major world economies see almost a 1:1 ratio of economic growth and Percent CO2 emissions. Because of this world economies do not wish to curtail emissions as it could hurt them economically, and that the only way to reduce emissions on a grand scale is for agreements like the Paris agreement.

nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227

literally:

You can't just draw a graph supporting you views and claim it is reality.

Also I would think the one with the unnatural explanation would be required to produce the proof.
I'm no genius but it seems more logical that the ones who feel a change is not a natural process would be required to produce some evidence.

Lemmings allow their economy to get screwed over some "chicken little" fantasy. Or is it a sacrifice to your rain god?

ah, you are the one that wants to influence policy also....

and you have zero arguments in your favour that stand up to any scrutiny at all.

not just weak, not even weak, just worthless.

stop being a contrarian for the lulz, get a real clue, come back as a decent human being genuinely worried about other people.

Your causal link from CO2 to temperature is just a fantasy until you finish the experiments. How are they going?

Honestly, no one really wants to say that there's no way to cut enough. Period. Even if you bought climate change hook, line, and sinker, no proposed solution even puts a dent into the problem. Which is why it's been politically and economically hijacked. It's a problem that a large number of people are willing to pay into with absolutely no concern for actual results.

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Here's a great paper for finding out why some science is 100% valid (physics, for example), and why some science is close to 100% bullshit (sociology, for example).

Global warming suffers from 4 of the 6 likely factors for why its results are bullshit (check out the corollarys)

Cheap equivalence argument doesn't apply.

Your arguments are required first. There's no way to examine the validity of an unstated argument.

Don't bother talking about "decent human beings" until you've grasped the basics.

Controlled experiments normally don't exist in nature, but in a sense it has already been conducted for us.
I mentioned PETM for example:
This was 55 million years ago, when an enormous amount of carbon got injected into the atmosphere and ocean within not more than 20.000 years.
As a response, the planet warmed by more than 5°C, ocean sediments suddenly turn dark red (because of a shoaling of the lysocline), precipitation strongly increased, there is a huge exstirpation and turnover in marine and terrestrial species, mass migration of mammals, changes in soil chemistry and transient dwarfism of animals.

A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several of these events in the Eocene alone (albeit with a smaller magnitude).

>You can't just draw a graph supporting you views and claim it is reality.
What you think I just whipped this up in photoshop?
>Industrial revolution and technology from that point forward releases huge amounts of CO2, methane, Chlorofluorocarbons, N2O into the atmosphere
>We know that these "greenhouse gasses" have the ability to erode the ozone layer and trap energy from the sun in our atmosphere
This is a valid explanation.
Unless you can come up with a better explanation for higher CO2 levels, sea temperature rising, air temperature rising, ice sheets receding; then you have to concede to my evidence.

if all you can do is take refuge in an appeal to unknown unknowns, then I leave you with it

that doesn't prove their research invalid though. The only thing you proved was that there is a possibility for error.

The solar cycle.

(((They've))) convinced millions of people that the sun couldn't possibly be responsible for climate changes on earth.
It's the single biggest case of cognitive dissonance anyone has ever seen.

We are entering into a grand solar minimum. The earth will cool and they will blame co2.

>What evidence is there that global climate, the extent that we're currently seeing, change is a natural process?

There used to be like several kilometers of ice where I live just over ten thousand years ago. The general trend in temperature is upwards.

the experiments used to blame CO2 use boxes with lids (sealed boxes)
our atmosphere has no lid and is not sealed

We've received lower irradiance levels since 1978 and we've had the hottest decades since then; so no the answer is not that the sun is causing it.

The fact that controlled experiments don't exist in nature doesn't mean you get to say "oh well, let's just assume our theories are righ then".

Your PETM example is nothing like an experiment. You didn't "inject" CO2 into the "system". In fact you have no idea where it came from. You don't know that CO2 emissions weren't an effect of the rise in temperature. You *imply* the CO2 suddenly appeared before the warming but you don't actually know that either - your data aren't accurate enough.

Only a fantasist would think that was anything like an experiment.

As solar activity diminishes, galactic cosmic rays increase causes more cloud cover, atmospheric electrical events and increased volcanism which increases the
albedo effect Further cooling the earth.

Wrong faggot shill.

Sweet evidence broseph.

you should look at

I will additionally address your comment "A single one of these events would be enough to demonstrate a link, but there are actually several...".

Firstly this reads like indoctrination/brainwashing language. "there are more, and more, and more". It belongs in the trash can, along with "overwhelming consensus" and "denier".

You can produce 100 weak arguments in favour of ANY overall thesis about the climate system, because it is complex, poorly understood and hard to model.

We just need ONE convincing argument. In an earlier reply I indicate why this is no such thing.

Thermal inertia. NEXT!

>We just need ONE convincing argument.
There will clearly never be an argument convincing enough for you.

Fuck off with your fake data, acting like weather services all over the world haven't been caught falsifying their data.
Oh look, here's just the latest one.
climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/
If you wanna whine about the source, I can find you as many as you want.

And the long solar cycle chat (((they))) don't want to talk about.

It seems likely that you're right. Climatology is unlikely ever yo produce a "two slit experiment" of its own.

But of course, if advocates stopped going on boards trying to trick people into thinking that has been achieved, and instead maybe tried to help achieve it, well I suppose it would be more likely.

so let me get this straight:
we have an event of sudden warming, coinciding with a sudden release of gases that are known to influence surface temperature - and the we are supposed to reject that in favor of ... what exactly?

anyone who has spent 10 seconds thinking about it would realize that a) the source of the carbon doesn't have to be known for it to perturb the climate (the radiative properties of CO2 derived from unknown sources is the same as that of CO2 from known sources) and b) carbon was almost certainly also released by the warming as an amplifying feedback

You're assuming your own conclusion - making a circular argument. All you have is warming and increased CO2 at about the same time.

You DO NOT KNOW which happened first.

You DO NOT HAVE an external source for that CO2. So it's release could have been caussd by the climate system.

All you have is an assumption that global warming theory is ALREADY TRUE, which you sneakily insert using the words "gases ... known to influence surface temperature". It was clever of you to say "gases" and not "CO2" so as to obfuscate the cheat (obviously you've done this before you rascal ;-) ).

Anyway, taking out the cheat and noting the important things you don't know which I have called out above, alternate hypotheses in which warming causes increased CO2 are equally well supported.

And then at the end you sneak in another CAGW-hypothesis as an assumption: "amplifying feedback". Another unproven beauty.

By the way, for anyone else who is interested, Watts Up With That thoroughly destroy this guy's PETM argument in plenty of detail.

Here: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/another-half-done-press-release-wheres-the-science-citation/

>website run by Marc Morano
>Sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
>Funded by Exxon
They're citing an issue with the recording equipment, it's being investigated currently. Really not compelling evidence that a few stations fucked up therefore global climate change isn't real.

Retardation in action is a fascinating sight.