>there are still people that believe in human made climate change

File: temp2.png (17KB, 610x356px)

17KB, 610x356px

>>134167774

File: temp3.jpg (97KB, 816x416px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 816x416px

>>134167774

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

>>134167774

POLL
Is climate change man made?

https://strawpoll.com/e19c3432

>>134167774

>minoan warming (not human made)
>roman warming (not human made)
>medieval warming (not human made)
>modern warming (HUMAN MADE!11!111ffs)

>>134167774
Yes, it's getting warmer.
No, it's not man made.

>>134169412
>>134167818
>>134167790
>>134167774

quit raping paleoclimate

>>134169580
Well technically we are making our own environments hotter. IE were warming ourselves.

>>134169580
This. The current discourse is so deceptive because it frames the whole debate as "scientists who can prove that the Earth is warming vs rednecks who think that cold weather disproves climate change". What it's really about is whether or not the warming is man-made or natural.

File: climatefreak2.jpg (1MB, 1776x1797px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1776x1797px

I don't want what the Climate FREAKS are pushing

don't let your children become Climate Freaks

File: OHC and rate.png (93KB, 435x287px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 435x287px

>>134167774
>Greenland
>Global

>>134167790
>Deep ocean
>Pic related

>>134167818
>no source

>>134169412
That's a retarded distinction.

Much of past warming was due to changes in CO2 concentration which can come from a variety of sources, including humans.

>>134171212
That graph is for the last 50 years. It's a natural normal change though.

see
>>134167774

File: fig-2.jpg (308KB, 958x732px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 958x732px

>>134167774
uh oh

>>134172068
They had to fake it when they realized their scam didn't fit with historical data.
It's not hotter today than in the medieval warm period.

>>134171849
Not addressing the issues I have with interpreting >>134167790
to mean anything significant in examining todays temperatures.

For one what is meant by 'deep' ocean? Which specific layers of the ocean is being referred to here? If you go down deep enough the temperatures will take many decades of warming before you see significant reaction to changing global temperatures.

Secondly don't you think its a poor way to look at recent change by using a scale that many thousands of terajoules too large for change to be discerned on?

Also what evidence do you have that the change in sea temperatures is natural and normal? Its been known since at least the 70's that CO2 has had an impact on past temperatures via various lines of evidence. Is it not reasonable to think that current warming is also due to CO2?

>>134172237
Just so you know the light blue reconstruction in >>134172068 is actually used by you here >>134167774

File: pages-climate-graph-1.jpg (22KB, 616x266px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 616x266px

>>134172237
this is really getting stale
is a conspiracy theory really everything you can offer in response to the conclusions of dozens of reconstructions using a wealth of different proxies and techniques from locations all around the world?

pic-related is the most comprehensive global reconstruction ever compiled. It used hundreds of different papers and was written by 80 or so expert authors.
They even say that they were unable to detect a globally synchronous Medieval Climate Anomaly.
(and remember: since the data points on this graph are 30-yr averages, the last few very warm years aren't even visible in this)

In fact, we likely are beyond the entire temperature range of the Holocene already, which means you have to go back to the previous interglacial to find equivalent temperatures.