The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that can not be
explained by natural causes.
To date these claims have either been shown to be false or better
explained by natural causes.
But recent warming trends can not be
explained by natural causes / forcings alone.
Here's a post from some of Australia's leading climate scientists at tcktcktck.org: «The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that can not be
explained by natural causes.
Warming since 1980 is better
explained by natural causes, not by AGW.
It is very unlikely that the 20th - century warming can be
explained by natural causes.
«Obviously,» as you say, if all warming can be
explained by natural causes, there's no room for an hypothesized AGW as a cause for warming.
You can't reject a null hypothesis that is simply a restatement of reality — e.g., that ALL global warming can be
explained by natural causes.
For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be
explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.
«'' Climate researchers believe that the three - decade decline in Arctic sea ice can not be
explained by natural causes alone.
But recent warming trends can not be
explained by natural causes / forcings alone.
However, only the Tglobe curve is characterized by a very significant upward trend — a trend which can not be
explained by these natural causes.
A miracle, as I would understand it, would be an event that can not be
explained by natural causes (or at least so unlikely and / or misunderstood as to make it seem that way).
Not exact matches
Further, all diseases were believed to be
caused by witches and their spells, storms and other
natural events were attributed to witches and mental illness was
explained by possession
by witches.
We may think that if we had been there, with our present knowledge, we could have
explained them
by «
natural»
causes (such as «autosuggestion», «telepathy», «extrasensory perception» — if indeed such terms do
explain anything).
When we understand the
natural causes of something we
explain it through science; when we don't understand its
natural causes we
explain it
by attributing it to God.
I can
explain climate change as a result of a
natural cycle
caused by the masses and orbits of the planets, but I don't go around calling believers in humans
causing climate change idiots simply because I know what actually
causes it.
This is made clear
by the definition of its very proponents: «the theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent
cause rather than an undirected process such as
natural selection.
The Inst.itute defines it as the proposition that «certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent
cause, not an undirected process such as
natural selection.»
For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the «intelligent design» evident in «observable features of the
natural world... can be adequately
explained only
by recourse to intelligent
causes.»
Socrates says that when he was a young man he had a consuming interest in
natural science, always seeking into the
causes of things, and asking such questions as whether organic growth is due to fermentation
caused by variations of temperature, and whether thought and memory can be
explained in terms of the brain.
This is the view that it is possible to
explain all features and events that occur in the
natural world
by reference to exclusively
natural causes.
All of this helps
explain why our exclusive sprouting process not only significantly increases vitamins such as vitamin A, vitamin C and B - vitamins, but also
causes a
natural change allowing the protein and carbohydrates to be assimilated
by the body more efficiently.
«Paw - Earth contains cedar and lavender oils... both serve as a
natural repellent to fleas and ticks, and lavender oil also works as an antiseptic and anti-inflammatory to relieve itching and discourages infection that can be
caused by scratching,» she
explains.
Warming since then can not be
explained simply
by natural causes.
It was
caused by natural factors that likely continued through the 20thcentury, making the recent warming more difficult to
explain without the impact of increased greenhouse gases.
He
explained that an article I wrote in 2002 about fires, both
natural and human
caused, smoldering in coal seams around the world, inspired him, while he was completing a doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley, to switch from studying risks posed
by smoldering combustion in spacecraft to those back on Earth.
If the recent warming hiatus is
caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be
explained by natural climate variability.
JC said» If the recent warming hiatus is
caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be
explained by natural climate variability.»
In addition to that the lacking warming during the recent 15 years can not be
explained by any change of CO2 content in the atmosphere, there are evidences available according to which the changes of CO2 contents in the atmosphere are dominated
by natural causes, where influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is so minimal that it can not be found
by measurements in reality.
Given adequate data, one would
explain the «
natural warming»
by giving the
cause or combination of
causes, whether it is a brighter sun (some infrequent change to the UV part of the spectrum?)
Depending on a given climate station's temperature measurements, the warming (cooling) trend is likely to be
explained, from 40 to 90 %,
by natural causes.
The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to
explain the post-1970 temperature increase
by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was
caused by humans.
How does warming
cause cooling, & as has been stated here & elsewhere, why is cooling a
natural variation but any warming is «impossibe to
explain»
by natural variations?
But it is worth noting that though the Fish & Wildlife Dept. has ruled this fish kill a result of
natural causes, the Gulf of Mexico has a severe problem with marine dead zones, as New Scientist
explains: «Summer dead zones are common in the Gulf of Mexico,
caused by the large amounts of fertiliser that get flushed down the Mississippi river, which triggers a dramatic drop in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water.»
This sharp, unprecedented rise in the average global temperature during the last decade of the 20th century can not be
explained as a temporary swing produced
by natural causes alone, and its is very likely that heat - trapping waste gases are at least partly responsible for it.
Your insisting that we * understand * everything that
causes natural variation before we can say that, in light of the record, there is nothing happening that hasn't happened many times in the past, and can't be
explained by natural variation, is pure sophistry.