/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12744582
>But isn't the climate always changing?
generally over millennia and never without a reason
>How do you determine attribution of a natural process?
You mean like for example being able to determine that variations in the earths orbit change how much radiation the earth receives, and this determines the earths glacial/interglacial cycle?
>How do you determine if climate change was natural climate change or unnatural climate change? What if unnatural climate change and natural climate change look the same? Do you flip a coin?
How about looking at what factors changed? Has incoming solar radiation changed? Have aerosols from natural sources decreased? Have humans burned enough fossil fuels to completely dominate any natural sources and raised the concentration of CO2 to the highest levels in 5million+ years virtually overnight?

>>12731085
>humans Minor part of climate
pic related certainly isn't a minor change
>rest of earth and solar system
what major changes have there been in this period, you seem confident so you have an answer right?

>>11596110
>variations in global humidity will affect the variance 99:1 compared to CO2

positive feedbacks from water vapor amplify warming from CO2 significantly meaning an increase in the greenhouse effect from water vapor is a direct result of increasing CO2.

>add to that all the escape vectors of CO2 from forests and oceans and you have a nothingburger
natural sinks have absorbed more than half of human emitted CO2 yet atmospheric co2 levels are close to doubling from pre industrial averages. Natural sinks are becoming saturated and could soon become net emitters. it's pretty much as far from a nothing burger as is physically possible.

>>11438835
humans are entirely responsible from the increase seen in the graph, in fact only half of our total emissions have ended up in the atmosphere, the rest have been absorbed by the ocean which is causing acidification which is an entirely separate ecological disaster.

>>11421244
Then the answer to your question is answered if you simply do the unit conversions.
O2 is decreasing slightly.
>http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/faq.html

>>11307623
interesting claim, when will this self correcting mechanism start kicking in? why do CO2 levels just keep increasing with no signs of slowing down?

>>11147642
>The planet has ways of dealing with this (oceans and trees among others) as well as a decreasing co2 in and of itself.
not fast enough pic related

> nor will the climate change because of us
citation needed

>One medium size volcano erruption will cause more co2 than any human activity since the 1700's till now.
completely wrong volcanic activity is an insignificant source of co2 compared to human activity. An eruption large enough to release more CO2 than we do would wipe out a continent, and is a one in 50 million years event.

>starve off billions of people.
climate change WILL cause billions of people to starve when agriculture collapses across the globe, transitioning to renewable energy wont.

in summary basically everything you said is nonsense, either you're a literal shill or incapable of basic critical thinking and fact checking.

>>11134786
Co2 levels and temperatures keep rising with no breaks, so observational evidence strongly suggests you're full of shit.

>>11101107
>1800 1985 is the first tiem temperature is uncorrelated to tsi

DING DING DING! We have a winner folks! now for our bonus question what's suddenly different after the industrial revolution!?!?!?!?!

>>10770340