If Sup Forums doesn't believe in global warming then how do you explain this graph?

If Sup Forums doesn't believe in global warming then how do you explain this graph?
When natural fluctuation in heat emitted from the sun, volcanic activity and aerosols are added to the red line, it almost exactly matches the green line by the way.

>Volcanism

We know that's not the cause cuz muh radiocarbon analysis.

Sup Forums doesn't believe in AGW because it's infiltrated by the Jew. The Jew wants the world to burn.

Fuck off with your carbon taxing propaganda.

obviously its not the primary cause if co2 alone almost completely dictates the trend in the above graph. it's just an explanation for why the red isnt perfectly adhering to the green

Look at data going back thousands of years and you’ll see that his increase isn’t even close to the biggest upswing over the last several thousand years

Not to mention you can’t even tell me what this will mean for the climate with any level of certainty, certainly not in the short term

I just don't see how humanity could be the main culprit for us reaching 400ppm when one decent volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the measurement of CO2 humanity has put out since the industrial revolution-today.

(((Global Temperature Anomaly)))

>100 years of data is relevant on a geological scale of billions

seriously, without a mathematical definition of the term (((Global Temperature Anomaly))) there is no educated discussion of this graph in this thread

therefore,
OP is shit
this thread is shit

>If OP doesn't believe in retardation then how do we explain this image?
>implying time started in 1900
>Answer: sage goes in the options

Global warming is a bubble. It will crash soon. Don't say I didn't warn you.

...

Faaaalse. Fuck you, faggot.

The graph is fake like the holocaust.
Debunked.

look at that derived data matching within two different arbitrary scales on an arbitrary timeline it even correlates on the best fit line im a statistician it checks out

...

keep it saged you fucking newfags

...

Thanks, user. I'm pulling my money out.

>nobody knows what it's like
>to be a faggot
>to be a kike shill
>behind the nose

because if the (((scientists))) had any grasp on the system they would have predicted these variables ahead of time instead of finding them afterwards and then pretending to understand it now

is this real?
why cant i find anything from a legit news org?

You really can't fail to feel the desperation of climate science critics when they, after two decades, still try to take down the hockey-stick.

Just let it go. This has slipped away from the hands of your side of the debate long ago. The hockey-stick is now backed about by over a dozen other reconstructions, including the most comprehensive, global multi-proxy database of the PAGES2K consortium.

>1900
>graph goes back 117 years
>science says planet is 6 billion years old


You fucks don't even have 0.1% of the data yet you claim man made climate change is the absolute truth.

omg global warming is real, thank you science for this reg y x, i knew it was a linear and iid relationship basically

temperature = b0 + b1*CO2 + b2*sunny days + b3*aerosols etc + b4*volcano + error term

great fucking chart retard, did I explain it right? No time subscript needed, you just add the variables together and that is the science, GET IT??? Don't deny the #science, the reg y x stata monkeys shall rule the earth

if you believe you can "fix the climate" then just fucking do it and stop talking so much.

>feel the desperation
Nice projection, friend.

Basically this There's a fluctuation in global temperature, yeah. But man's impact is negligible. The global temperature always fluctuates naturally, and while this century might be a bit hotter in average than the couple previous ones, the ones that came before that were much higher.

And if that wasn't enough, global warming "scientists" are known to not jut naturally have a huge bias (considering their job description), but they've also been known to selectively remove lower temperatures from their pools of data to pump the results. Many of the scientists that, today, oppose global warming "science", left because they're real scientists and saw that shit happening, and were unable to stand it.

Hell, the very guy who came up with the first hypothesis of global warming, a hypothesis on which all the subsequent "science", and more importantly, industry, has rested upon; the very guy who came up with that hypothesis concluded, after about a decade of data collection and analysis, that there is actually was no global warming in the '90s when he finished his study.

Now, my use of quotes when I say "scientist" and "science" might be a little annoying, but I'm clearly doing it because I'm talking about people who aren't really scientists, who aren't really doing science. In order to do science, you need to go through the scientific method, which is a list of seven steps:
1 - Notice a pattern empirically.
2 - Generate a hypothesis based on that pattern.
3 - Run studies that don't try to prove or disprove the hypothesis (that's why, for example, in medicine, you use placebos in studies), but that provide some data around it.
4 - Collect and collate the data received from the studies.
5 - Draw conclusions from the collected data, explaining why they correlate to the hypothesis in a (a) true, (b) false or (c) inconclusive manner.
6 - Publish the hypothesis, data and conclusions.
7 - Go through peer review.

"Environmental scientists" don't do that.

omg temps went up 2 degrees in 100 years.
how come in the 70's scientists were telling us another ice age is coming and acid rain would kill every freshwater fish by 2020.

DELET

The global estimates fell within a range of about 0.3 ± 0.15 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, implying that human carbon dioxide emissions were more than 90 times greater than global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions

nope. manmade CO2 emissions are at most 2% of total CO2 emissions. possibly as little as .3%. This was something that the original estimates that they based global warming models on was HILARIOUSLY wrong.

one of the major problems they had in originally estimating natural CO2 emissions is that there is a huge number of volcanic emissions from the ocean - but we literally know more about the surface of the moon than the ocean floor.

Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million year

Fucking 0.2 degrees, you absolute simpleton.

it might make up only a small fraction of the total carbon that's moving through the biogeochemical cycles, but the actual injection of carbon into the atmosphere is so great that there really is no precedent for it. In fact, the current rate of carbon injection (>10 Pg C/yr) exceeds the calculated PETM rate, the closest thing to a geologic analogue by an entire order of magnitude

>it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2
And what (((climate scientist)))'s ass did you pull that out of? Based on what numbers? When there is an abundance of resource nature adapts. Algae bloom. Plant life flourishes. We have more trees today than we have had at any known point in all of recorded history. The argument that nature "can't" handle it is horshit. Nature has adapted and corrected from volcanic eruptions that brought year-long winters after spreading sulfuric ash over the entire planet. The extra methane from some dead chinks rotting behind the iPhone factory isn't something "muh nature" hasn't seen before.

>atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million year
Based nearly entirely off ice core records, compared to numbers gathered from the Mauna Loa Observatory in just the last few years. Suspect, isn't it, that (((scientists))) so interested in clean data are trying to collect relevant atmospheric data of CO2 concentrations OVER AN ACTIVE VOLCANO don't you think?

Why can the jew not stop lying?

doesn't it make sense to you that the number of co2 sources has always matched the number of co2 sinks before the industrial revolution?

>the number of co2 sources has always matched the number of co2 sinks

Oh? That must be why CO2 levels and temperatures have been stable forever, right up until the invention of wifi dildos, right mohammed? You know what we need to do, fellow white people? Give jews control over all of your industry so we can save the planet! :^)


Why can the jew just not stop lying?

sorry, has always 'largely' matched.