>(((science))) >muh always showing just the last 100 years

>>136238268
isotope analysis shows that in increasing proportion of the atmospheric co2 is from human sources, that is burning fossil fuels.

we are in an ice-age, currently in an interglacial. Earth has been in ice age since long before the first proto-humans.

File: 654758.jpg (29KB, 618x658px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 618x658px

>>136238561
>isotope analysis shows that in increasing proportion of the atmospheric co2 is from human sources
i.e. pissing into an ocean of piss >>136238451

File: 5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_1050_591_s_c1_c_c.jpg (275KB, 1050x591px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1050x591px

Let me ask you OP
Do you think that climate scientists don't know abot past climate change?
They do, and they still tell us that current change is driven by man

Your 2 sources
EPICA and Vostok ice core both do not disprove man made climate change

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02599.html
Here is an article published in Nature regarding the EPICA ice core.

>In this paper, we have shown the extended climate record back to 740 kyr, and that the pattern of climate before MIS 11 was different to that which has followed for the past four glacial cycles. Although the results from MIS 11 indicate that without human intervention a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future, the predicted increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations make this unlikely

So we are messing up the cycles you have shown. Vostok shows the same cycles.

>THIS HAPPENS AT THE END OF EVERY ICE AGE
No it fucking doesn't! The same ice core data shows that CO2 is spiking massively.
The Ice Ages are caused by what is known as Milankovitch Cycles. These cause changes over a long period of time. Our current trend is nothing like what has been happening in previous glacial cycles.

We are not at the tail end of an ice age. A study in Nature by Ganopolski et al concluded that we are delaying the onset of the next ice age by up to 50,000 years. This is not natural.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

>Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years

inb4 these papers are 'hoaxes'.

File: IMG_4932.jpg (83KB, 660x417px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 660x417px

>>136240142
but my picture shows co2 is at an all time low

ITT: correlation is causation

File: royer2009solarwithco2.jpg (29KB, 450x386px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x386px

>>136241325
and my picture shows a correlation between the combined forcing of CO2 and Solar activity
and solar activity is steady right now.

>>136243939
Wow solar activity clearly has a fat greater impact on the earth than its inhabitants, we really need to slap a tax on that sun, its the only way we can stop the CO2

File: solar activity v temp.gif (10KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x335px

>>136245673
I'd tax the sun if I could

>>136238268
OP graph is determined by proximity of earth to sun which varies in a cycle.

We're not due for a decrease in temperature for several dozen thousand years. At this point in the cycle (obliquity) temperatures should be steadily falling

>>136238268
Did you know that the earth is only ~6000 years old?

>>136238561
Proof of these ((proto-humans))?