Is the recent warming trend really unprecedented in earth's history?

[ding]

The claim is often made that the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earth's history, but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence. It would seem to me to be a difficult claim to prove. What does everyone think about that claim? Is it provable? Can it be disproved? Is the recent warming trend really unprecedented in earth's history?

 

[Donald H]

The claim is often made that the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earth's history, but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence. It would seem to me to be a difficult claim to prove. What does everyone think about that claim? Is it provable? Can it be disproved? Is the recent warming trend really unprecedented in earth's history?

If that's what climate scientists say then they will have proof to offer that is reliable evidence to back it up.

Is that what climate science is saying unconditionally?

Is the OP really interested in learning the facts, or is it just more of what it seems to be?

A hit and run!

 

[task0778]

I am fairly certain that over Earth's history there have been fluctuating periods of warming and cooling with trends going both ways depending on a number of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. Have we not seen numerous graphs depicting the uneven temperature data over the past millions of years? Obviously if one looks at the data since the last ice age the planet has warmed up as an overall trend, but again that had nothing to do with humanity.

That said, it could be that ever since the industrial age started a couple of hundred years or so ago, we have introduced too much and too many pollutants into the air. But the extent to which that has influenced recent warming trends and even the extent of those warming trends are themselves open to question in terms of accuracy. So, what we have here is a big fat maybe; IMHO no scientist worth his salt should declare otherwise, one way or the other. We don't fucking know, nothing has been proven.

AND - the other thing is, nobody knows for sure what we can do about it that will make an appreciable difference. We've already made significant changes over the past 30 years or so, and no doubt will continue to do that as certain technologies develop ways to reduce current pollution levels. It very well may be that before the end of the century we will not be burning much in the way of fossil fuels and the people who will be alive in 2100 will look back at us and say we were a bunch of fucking idiots. Guilty as charged IMHO.

 

[xband]

Hooray for global warming and fuck the polar bears.

 

[Donald H]

I am fairly certain that over Earth's history there have been fluctuating periods of warming and cooling with trends going both ways depending on a number of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. Have we not seen numerous graphs depicting the uneven temperature data over the past millions of years? Obviously if one looks at the data since the last ice age the planet has warmed up as an overall trend, but again that had nothing to do with humanity.

That said, it could be that ever since the industrial age started a couple of hundred years or so ago, we have introduced too much and too many pollutants into the air. But the extent to which that has influenced recent warming trends and even the extent of those warming trends are themselves open to question in terms of accuracy. So, what we have here is a big fat maybe; IMHO no scientist worth his salt should declare otherwise, one way or the other. We don't fucking know, nothing has been proven.

AND - the other thing is, nobody knows for sure what we can do about it that will make an appreciable difference. We've already made significant changes over the past 30 years or so, and no doubt will continue to do that as certain technologies develop ways to reduce current pollution levels. It very well may be that before the end of the century we will not be burning much in the way of fossil fuels and the people who will be alive in 2100 will look back at us and say we were a bunch of fucking idiots. Guilty as charged IMHO.

Your opinion is that of a layperson and your use of profane adjectives to make your point only minimizes your personal credibility.

The question posed by the OP is clear but it's not relevant unless it takes into account that climate science doesn't make the statement to the pro being unconditional.

And until the OP does that it just appears to be a hit and run.

One of two by the OP that are only 23 minutes apart!

 

[Maxdeath]

Do you guys not understand that Al Gore the worlds most eminent scientist showed every climate scientist that they too can make millions, have a private plane to ride in and have a mansion on the coast that was supposed to be underwater by now.
But 44 fixed global warming or climate Change or whatever it is being called this week. As evidenced by him buying a multi million dollar mansion on the coast.

 

[abu afak]

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.
- - - - -


The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.

 

[abu afak]

ding said:
And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf



The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.
`

 

[Donald H]

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

Well done! It's an opportunity to call it for what it is by the OP.

A trolling hit and run.

 

[Stryder50]

As this one shows, there appears to be a natural cycle in play;

More data;

Global Cooling should be the larger concern and the pattern of the past suggests we are due for another plunge.

 

[task0778]

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

On the other hand, maybe everything you posted is bullshit. Consider:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

FURTHER: (same link)

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

A blatant attempt to intensify paper’s impact
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.


This is a highly politicized issue, has been for a long time. Maybe what you said is true, maybe not. But here's the thing, I am not about to support the idea of spending trillions of dollars that we don't have on programs and projects where the costs are underestimated and the benefits are overestimated on a problem that we don't really know how serious or imminent it is.

 

[abu afak]

On the other hand, maybe everything you posted is bullshit. Consider:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/bombshell-noaa-whistleblower-says-karl-et-al-pausebuster-paper-was-hyped-broke-procedures/

FURTHER: (same link)

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

A blatant attempt to intensify paper’s impact
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.


This is a highly politicized issue, has been for a long time. Maybe what you said is true, maybe not. But here's the thing, I am not about to support the idea of spending trillions of dollars that we don't have on programs and projects where the costs are underestimated and the benefits are overestimated on a problem that we don't really know how serious or imminent it is.

Best advice?
Ignore Denier blog WUWT (aka WTFUWT)
You can't throw out NOAA clown.

`

 

[ding]

If that's what climate scientists say then they will have proof to offer that is reliable evidence to back it up.

Is that what climate science is saying unconditionally?

Is the OP really interested in learning the facts, or is it just more of what it seems to be?

A hit and run!

So you believe it even though you have no proof?

 

[ding]

Well done! It's an opportunity to call it for what it is by the OP.

A trolling hit and run.

Seriously?

 

[abu afak]

The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.
(at the Top now and Hundreds of other times)

My thread already tackling this- still on page 1.
Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc.
All the credible sources one could ask for.
Repeat-Troll 'GodDidIt' Dingshlt just wants to try again.

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists. OF COURSE, have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]

 

[Donald H]

So you believe it even though you have no proof?

You're obviously too stupid to understand what I believe or what others believe.

And you got yourself caught trolling with two new threads that were just 'hit and run' efforts to begin with.

As that pertains to this question, it should be adequately clear that science will answer the questions by saying that the answer need be qualified.

So are you going to 'run' or are you going to tell everybody what climate scientists really say?

 

[task0778]

You can't throw out NOAA clown.

Neither can or should we accept everything they say as gospel either, asshole.

 

[ding]

I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

My thread already tackling this- still on page 1.
Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc.
All the credible sources one could ask for.
Repeat-Troll 'GodDidIt' Dingshlt just wants to try again.

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists. OF COURSE, have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]

They would have had to compare of the recent warming trend to 600 million years of temperature data. I know for a fact they did not because D-O events warmed much faster than the recent warming tend.

 

[ding]

If that's what climate scientists say then they will have proof to offer that is reliable evidence to back it up.

Is that what climate science is saying unconditionally?

Is the OP really interested in learning the facts, or is it just more of what it seems to be?

A hit and run!

Did you mean to misspell home run? Yes, the OP did hit a home run. No is leading yes by 6 to 1.

 

[ding]

The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.

My thread already tackling this- still on page 1.
Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc.
All the credible sources one could ask for.
Repeat-Troll 'GodDidIt' Dingshlt just wants to try again.

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists. OF COURSE, have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]

D-O events, bro, D-O events. Much much much faster warming. Look it up.