Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[madhatter]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

Mister Moose, I'll put it in terms you might appreciate: you've gotten to sleep in more because there's been fewer powder days. Last time Killington reached it's nominal 250" average was 2010-2011. Over the 6 years since then the average snowfall has been 180 inches. Even ignoring that 81" outlier year, the average is still only 200 inches. I doubt it is a coincidence that 2016 and 2015 were the warmest years on record. 2017 is likely to crack the top 3 as well. Climate is changing, even right in Killington.

snowfall.JPG

The climate is always changing, like it was apparently doing back in the late 80's early 90's:

And ski resorts didn't embellish snow totals for marketing purposes either when they deemed it necessary. In other words, take those historic snow totals with at least a grain of salt and skepticism, much like we should take the accuracy of temperature estimates from hundreds and thousands of years ago based on tree rings and ice cores.

c'mon the science is settled even hopey dope said so, and if hopey dope said so you know he "heard it on the news" so it MUST be true...


meanwhile globally cold at Killington today w single digits for a high...

[rogman]

So its been 2 3/4 years since the start of this thread, and another (guessing) 2-3 years before that on the political board.

What's changed?

Perhaps the most vocal proponents of each side can sum up what has changed of significance in the last 5 years.

Anything?

Mister Moose, I'll put it in terms you might appreciate: you've gotten to sleep in more because there's been fewer powder days. Last time Killington reached it's nominal 250" average was 2010-2011. Over the 6 years since then the average snowfall has been 180 inches. Even ignoring that 81" outlier year, the average is still only 200 inches. I doubt it is a coincidence that 2016 and 2015 were the warmest years on record. 2017 is likely to crack the top 3 as well. Climate is changing, even right in Killington.

The attachment snowfall.JPG is no longer available

The climate is always changing, like it was apparently doing back in the late 80's early 90's:

And ski resorts didn't embellish snow totals for marketing purposes either when they deemed it necessary. In other words, take those historic snow totals with at least a grain of salt and skepticism, much like we should take the accuracy of temperature estimates from hundreds and thousands of years ago based on tree rings and ice cores.

c'mon the science is settled even hopey dope said so, and if hopey dope said so you know he "heard it on the news" so it MUST be true...


meanwhile globally cold at Killington today w single digits for a high...

Meanwhile, Madhatter still hasn't learned the difference between climate and weather. I won't even get into signal to noise... And Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad. To paraphrase, "I don't understand proxy data, and I'm not going to learn. Harrumph." What did Dylan say, 50 years a go, "Don't criticize what you can't understand" (And you probably should re-read the lyrics: that whole stanza is about you.

But with respect to proxy data, Bubba. Do you reject all of it, or only when it applies to climate change? And only because you don't like what it says? Here are some other examples, do you reject all of these, too?

proxy_data_examples.JPG (172.48 KiB) Viewed 483 times

[madhatter]

Mister Moose, I'll put it in terms you might appreciate: you've gotten to sleep in more because there's been fewer powder days. Last time Killington reached it's nominal 250" average was 2010-2011. Over the 6 years since then the average snowfall has been 180 inches. Even ignoring that 81" outlier year, the average is still only 200 inches. I doubt it is a coincidence that 2016 and 2015 were the warmest years on record. 2017 is likely to crack the top 3 as well. Climate is changing, even right in Killington.

snowfall.JPG

The climate is always changing, like it was apparently doing back in the late 80's early 90's:

And ski resorts didn't embellish snow totals for marketing purposes either when they deemed it necessary. In other words, take those historic snow totals with at least a grain of salt and skepticism, much like we should take the accuracy of temperature estimates from hundreds and thousands of years ago based on tree rings and ice cores.

c'mon the science is settled even hopey dope said so, and if hopey dope said so you know he "heard it on the news" so it MUST be true...


meanwhile globally cold at Killington today w single digits for a high...

Meanwhile, Madhatter still hasn't learned the difference between climate and weather. I won't even get into signal to noise... And Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad. To paraphrase, "I don't understand proxy data, and I'm not going to learn. Harrumph." What did Dylan say, 50 years a go, "Don't criticize what you can't understand" (And you probably should re-read the lyrics: that whole stanza is about you.

But with respect to proxy data, Bubba. Do you reject all of it, or only when it applies to climate change? And only because you don't like what it says? Here are some other examples, do you reject all of these, too?

proxy_data_examples.JPG

meanwhile rogman hasn't learned the difference between sarcastic trolling and well whatever the rest of the stupid sh!t on this page is considered...the "globally cold at killington" thing was a dead giveaway, but hey you take all that ridiculous AGW sh!t at face value too...


Denialist: any person who isn't willing to pay an additional tax on energy for no reason whatsoever...

[Stormchaser]

proxy_data_examples.JPG

If the government tried to tax your increase on quality of life based on a highly manipulated but relative metric that showed your life has improved 0.01%, would you resist in any form?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Meanwhile, Madhatter still hasn't learned the difference between climate and weather. I won't even get into signal to noise... And Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad. To paraphrase, "I don't understand proxy data, and I'm not going to learn. Harrumph." What did Dylan say, 50 years a go, "Don't criticize what you can't understand" (And you probably should re-read the lyrics: that whole stanza is about you.

But with respect to proxy data, Bubba. Do you reject all of it, or only when it applies to climate change? And only because you don't like what it says? Here are some other examples, do you reject all of these, too?

Classic Rogman. "If you have any specific complaints about the use of specific types of proxy data in establishing paleoclimate records that means.... You don't believe in the concept of proxies in any iteration and you are an anti-modern caveman. Do you even science??"

The rest of us have no problem approaching each issue individually and judging them on their merits.

[Bubba]

Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad.

Seriously, do you ever question the data or do you simply accept it? Because if you don't question some of this you may as well call me a heretic as it appears you're working on faith.

Question: What degree of accuracy should we assign to temperature readings from the past, whether 150 years ago, taken with much more rudimentary thermometers, or 2,000 years ago taken via ice cores and tree rings? That we can use that data to identify a possible trend is one thing, but to accept those temperatures as base line readings with any exactitude and then use that data to state unequivocally that the earth has warmed by some very specific amount taken to a decimal point of accuracy over the past 2,000 years (whatever the actual figure claimed might be) is absurd.

Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?

As I've said many times in this thread and in person, I don't have a problem with the theory of CO2 potentially impacting the environment. What I take issue with is the absolute certainty claimed by you and so many others, and upon which people want to base policy.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad.

Seriously, do you ever question the data or do you simply accept it? Because if you don't question some of this you may as well call me a heretic as it appears you're working on faith.

Question: What degree of accuracy should we assign to temperature readings from the past, whether 150 years ago, taken with much more rudimentary thermometers, or 2,000 years ago taken via ice cores and tree rings? That we can use that data to identify a possible trend is one thing, but to accept those temperatures as base line readings with any exactitude and then use that data to state unequivocally that the earth has warmed by some very specific amount taken to a decimal point of accuracy over the past 2,000 years (whatever the actual figure claimed might be) is absurd.

Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?

As I've said many times in this thread and in person, I don't have a problem with the theory of CO2 potentially impacting the environment. What I take issue with is the absolute certainty claimed by you and so many others, and upon which people want to base policy.

Yeah.

You hit that one over the fence.

[Dickc]

Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad.

Seriously, do you ever question the data or do you simply accept it? Because if you don't question some of this you may as well call me a heretic as it appears you're working on faith.

Question: What degree of accuracy should we assign to temperature readings from the past, whether 150 years ago, taken with much more rudimentary thermometers, or 2,000 years ago taken via ice cores and tree rings? That we can use that data to identify a possible trend is one thing, but to accept those temperatures as base line readings with any exactitude and then use that data to state unequivocally that the earth has warmed by some very specific amount taken to a decimal point of accuracy over the past 2,000 years (whatever the actual figure claimed might be) is absurd.

Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?

As I've said many times in this thread and in person, I don't have a problem with the theory of CO2 potentially impacting the environment. What I take issue with is the absolute certainty claimed by you and so many others, and upon which people want to base policy.

Nailed it in a concise accurate nutshell. Good job Bubba!

[rogman]

Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad.

Seriously, do you ever question the data or do you simply accept it? Because if you don't question some of this you may as well call me a heretic as it appears you're working on faith.
Good God, do you even read you're own forum? Who's the guy posting plots of acreage? I'm probably the most data driven person you know. I analyze everything, part of my job.

Question: What degree of accuracy should we assign to temperature readings from the past, whether 150 years ago, taken with much more rudimentary thermometers,
Actually those old thermometers are exceptional. This is not particularly difficult technology, and calibration is fairly trivial. The issue has always been data collection. Lack of spatial diversity, and the methods of collection. This is particularly important with respect to sea water temperature, where procedures have changed over the years. Where once they measure surface temperature by heaving buckets over the side and bringing them on board. Evaporation during this process caused cooling; temperature data from this era had to be raised a tad to account for this. Later it was measured automatically from thermometers on cooling water intakes. That resulted in a slight warming (about 0.6 deg C, but I'm going from memory), so that data had to be adjusted downward. Lot of ocean data is collected via buoys now, and in general is of much higher accuracy. Systems like XBT (expendable bathy thermographs) give us simple inexpensive access to the entire water column.

or 2,000 years ago taken via ice cores and tree rings? That we can use that data to identify a possible trend is one thing, but to accept those temperatures as base line readings with any exactitude and then use that data to state unequivocally that the earth has warmed by some very specific amount taken to a decimal point of accuracy over the past 2,000 years (whatever the actual figure claimed might be) is absurd.
Lots of different proxy measurements give us a very good picture of the climate going back hundreds of thousands of years. Briefly, the way ice cores reveal temperature is via ratio of 0(xygen)16 and 0(xygen)18 molecules. They get this running sections of the core through a mass spec. It takes more energy to evaporate water with 0-18, because it is heavier. Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but if you really want to understand it, the information is out there. There are other proxies that reveal the similar results with different measures. Sediment cores (which you didn't mention), for example.
Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?
That's a hard question to answer definitively. Certainly volcanic eruptions could have caused rapid short term temperature changes. Obviously, that asteroid 65 million years ago certainly caused a huge climate disruption. However, if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not. Still, there exist natural feed back mechanisms, for example when we start coming out of an ice age, the warming ocean releases some C02 from the oceans, adding to the warming. Other effects, such as Milankovitch cycles occur over many thousands of years.


As I've said many times in this thread and in person, I don't have a problem with the theory of CO2 potentially impacting the environment. What I take issue with is the absolute certainty claimed by you and so many others, and upon which people want to base policy.

The scientific community as a whole historically has not advocated for particular public policy. In fact, in general, they are notoriously bad at communicating their findings to the public. Not really what they do. This has created an issue where others have stepped in to fill that void. Like many things, "follow the money", and the money in politics is with big oil. Scientists whisper, while Exxon can scream. There is a conspiracy, but it isn't by scientists. Anyone who spends time in academia, realizes scientists are an argumentative lot, and there is nothing they like better than to prove each other wrong.

[madhatter]

cold enough at K today to cool the entire planet....

[rogman]

cold enough at K today to cool the entire planet....

I didn't really weigh in on the earlier discussion regarding snowfall and Killington, even though I (inadvertently) started it in response to Mister Moose's query. I was blatantly trolling him, nothing more. However, my observation is that recently the climate at Killington is both drier and colder in the winter. Climate change? No idea. Not science, and definitely insufficient data to make such a broad generalization. Regardless, I suspect the Killington climate will change again, within a decade or two, perhaps warmer and wetter, perhaps something else entirely some of that will be driven by climate change, although there are many factors in play here. As the models improve (increases in computing power alone will ensure that), we'll have a much better idea. It's always been cold in winter, and will continue to be so.

[Bubba]

Bubba, I know you're a denialist, but that's pretty bad.

Seriously, do you ever question the data or do you simply accept it? Because if you don't question some of this you may as well call me a heretic as it appears you're working on faith.
Good God, do you even read you're own forum? Who's the guy posting plots of acreage? I'm probably the most data driven person you know. I analyze everything, part of my job.
It is, unfortunately (at times) part of being an admin for this board that I am forced to read it. Masochism runs deep in my psyche.

Question: What degree of accuracy should we assign to temperature readings from the past, whether 150 years ago, taken with much more rudimentary thermometers,
Actually those old thermometers are exceptional. This is not particularly difficult technology, and calibration is fairly trivial. The issue has always been data collection. Lack of spatial diversity, and the methods of collection. This is particularly important with respect to sea water temperature, where procedures have changed over the years. Where once they measure surface temperature by heaving buckets over the side and bringing them on board. Evaporation during this process caused cooling; temperature data from this era had to be raised a tad to account for this. Later it was measured automatically from thermometers on cooling water intakes. That resulted in a slight warming (about 0.6 deg C, but I'm going from memory), so that data had to be adjusted downward. Lot of ocean data is collected via buoys now, and in general is of much higher accuracy. Systems like XBT (expendable bathy thermographs) give us simple inexpensive access to the entire water column.
So, while we have improved data collection and accuracy of sea water temperatures, what has occurred with land temperatures? Since we only have satellite readings for the past (what?) 60 or so years, we are dependent on land readings for everything before that, right? How can we claim serious accuracy and exactitude to the tenth of a degree of land temperatures worldwide from the start of the industrial revolution when those readings were based on far more rudimentary technology with limited worldwide distribution?

or 2,000 years ago taken via ice cores and tree rings? That we can use that data to identify a possible trend is one thing, but to accept those temperatures as base line readings with any exactitude and then use that data to state unequivocally that the earth has warmed by some very specific amount taken to a decimal point of accuracy over the past 2,000 years (whatever the actual figure claimed might be) is absurd.
Lots of different proxy measurements give us a very good picture of the climate going back hundreds of thousands of years. Briefly, the way ice cores reveal temperature is via ratio of 0(xygen)16 and 0(xygen)18 molecules. They get this running sections of the core through a mass spec. It takes more energy to evaporate water with 0-18, because it is heavier. Obviously, this is a gross simplification, but if you really want to understand it, the information is out there. There are other proxies that reveal the similar results with different measures. Sediment cores (which you didn't mention), for example. I get that we have a "very good picture" of the climate way back when, but as I said earlier, it's good for establishing a trend line but not to claim exactitude to the degree so often referenced, i.e. the world has warmed x.y degrees C over the past 2500 years.

Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?
That's a hard question to answer definitively. Certainly volcanic eruptions could have caused rapid short term temperature changes. Obviously, that asteroid 65 million years ago certainly caused a huge climate disruption. However, if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not. Still, there exist natural feed back mechanisms, for example when we start coming out of an ice age, the warming ocean releases some C02 from the oceans, adding to the warming. Other effects, such as Milankovitch cycles occur over many thousands of years. And, of course, this is the most important question but the hardest to answer. There is a reasonable correlation between temperature trends the past 100-150 years and CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we cannot say whether correlation is causation without knowing whether similar time periods in the millennia gone by have experienced similar temperature increases without man made CO2. I accept that we are dealing with uncertainty, yet you and so many others cite this small sample of earth history as clear evidence that the increase is due to human activity. As one who spent years having to deal with energy policy and its impact on my company or, later, on clients, I had to see far clearer causation in order to support paying more for the energy we required. When a tenth of a cent a KWH increase would mean a million dollars a year at one plant (and we had 5 that size) we were talking about real dollars to the bottom line. As a consultant, it was the impact on clients rather than on my own company but the dollars still came from somewhere. We didn't just say "no" but we sure wanted more than panic to drive policy/regulatory decisions.


As I've said many times in this thread and in person, I don't have a problem with the theory of CO2 potentially impacting the environment. What I take issue with is the absolute certainty claimed by you and so many others, and upon which people want to base policy.

The scientific community as a whole historically has not advocated for particular public policy. In fact, in general, they are notoriously bad at communicating their findings to the public. Not really what they do. This has created an issue where others have stepped in to fill that void. Like many things, "follow the money", and the money in politics is with big oil. Scientists whisper, while Exxon can scream. There is a conspiracy, but it isn't by scientists. Anyone who spends time in academia, realizes scientists are an argumentative lot, and there is nothing they like better than to prove each other wrong. The scientific community as a whole has not advocated for particular policies? (Union of Concerned Scientists notwithstanding?) Maybe not, but their often reversed findings ("A new study says...") cause an awful lot of questions in people's minds. As for their skills at communicating, I'd say they do a pretty good job at issuing press releases, authoring peer reviewed papers that get lots of press, etc. What they communicate is a greater degree of certainty than justified when they should be spending more time explaining the gaps in their knowledge (and finishing off their reports with "we need more money for research" does nothing to add confidence.)

So, to answer the question I started with "Do you ever question the data or simply accept it?", I guess the answer is that you accept it.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

So, to answer the question I started with "Do you ever question the data or simply accept it?", I guess the answer is that you accept it.

Yeah again . Home Run. Rogman comes off as sincere (which I believe), bright (which I believe) and as an...

IMPARTIAL arbiter of climate data...

which he is definitely not.

His contention that he has diligently searched through the available climate data and has impartially come to the only sensible conclusion, which is... "the consensus is right!!"

By which he means:

combustion of hydrocarbon fuels has elevated atmospheric CO2 which has retained outgoing energy and the earth will warm dangerously as a consequence

...or...

simply...

"whatever you read at Skeptical Science is true!" (the fingerprints in his text are obvious)

While you have retained a "scientific " attitude. You want to be convinced by reference to data and argument that a claim is reasonable (perhaps especially if the societal consequences of accepting a claim are so onerous)

The problems with comparing proxy data with modern direct measurement are many as you have noted. Especially problematic is the issue of temporal resolution. At best some proxies give suggested values for averaged annual temperatures.

Here are some of the best ice core data which show obvious dramatic temperature changes at least as rapid as any suggested in modern data sets.

vostock2.png (754.88 KiB) Viewed 364 times

Antarctic ice

gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg (100.81 KiB) Viewed 364 times

Greenland Ice

Rogman's representation that these high quality proxy data sets show "modern warming is unprecedented" is obviously absurd.

[rogman]

So, to answer the question I started with "Do you ever question the data or simply accept it?", I guess the answer is that you accept it.

Yeah again . Home Run. Rogman comes off as sincere (which I believe), bright (which I believe) and as an...

IMPARTIAL arbiter of climate data...

which he is definitely not.

His contention that he has diligently searched through the available climate data and has impartially come to the only sensible conclusion, which is... "the consensus is right!!"

By which he means:

combustion of hydrocarbon fuels has elevated atmospheric CO2 which has retained outgoing energy and the earth will warm dangerously as a consequence

...or...

simply...

"whatever you read at Skeptical Science is true!" (the fingerprints in his text are obvious)

While you have retained a "scientific " attitude. You want to be convinced by reference to data and argument that a claim is reasonable (perhaps especially if the societal consequences of accepting a claim are so onerous)

The problems with comparing proxy data with modern direct measurement are many as you have noted. Especially problematic is the issue of temporal resolution. At best some proxies give suggested values for averaged annual temperatures.

Here are some of the best ice core data which show obvious dramatic temperature changes at least as rapid as any suggested in modern data sets.

vostock2.png

Antarctic ice

gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

Greenland Ice

Rogman's representation that these high quality proxy data sets show "modern warming is unprecedented" is obviously absurd.

You make up something I didn't say and actually attribute it to me. You even slap quotes around it. WTF is wrong with you? Check your meds.

Ps. Seldom look at Skeptical Science; I outlined my problems with it a few thousand pages back.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

So, to answer the question I started with "Do you ever question the data or simply accept it?", I guess the answer is that you accept it.

Yeah again . Home Run. Rogman comes off as sincere (which I believe), bright (which I believe) and as an...

IMPARTIAL arbiter of climate data...

which he is definitely not.

His contention that he has diligently searched through the available climate data and has impartially come to the only sensible conclusion, which is... "the consensus is right!!"

By which he means:

combustion of hydrocarbon fuels has elevated atmospheric CO2 which has retained outgoing energy and the earth will warm dangerously as a consequence

...or...

simply...

"whatever you read at Skeptical Science is true!" (the fingerprints in his text are obvious)

While you have retained a "scientific " attitude. You want to be convinced by reference to data and argument that a claim is reasonable (perhaps especially if the societal consequences of accepting a claim are so onerous)

The problems with comparing proxy data with modern direct measurement are many as you have noted. Especially problematic is the issue of temporal resolution. At best some proxies give suggested values for averaged annual temperatures.

Here are some of the best ice core data which show obvious dramatic temperature changes at least as rapid as any suggested in modern data sets.

vostock2.png

Antarctic ice

gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

Greenland Ice

Rogman's representation that these high quality proxy data sets show "modern warming is unprecedented" is obviously absurd.

You make up something I didn't say and actually attribute it to me. You even slap quotes around it. WTF is wrong with you? Check your meds.

Ps. Seldom look at Skeptical Science; I outlined my problems with it a few thousand pages back.

I think that anyone who has read even a fraction of your posts will recognize that my characterizations are (at least substantially) quite accurate.

Yes my " quotes" were not actual quotes of your exact wording... I'm confident that anyone not classified as a moron would recognize my quote marks were to paraphrase your positions in response to Bubba's very sane observations.

But I would love to quote your post explicitly to ppoint out your flawed arguments:

Bubba wrote:
"Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much? Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?"

To which you responded:
"That's a hard question to answer definitively. Certainly volcanic eruptions could have caused rapid short term temperature changes. Obviously, that asteroid 65 million years ago certainly caused a huge climate disruption. However, if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not. Still, there exist natural feed back mechanisms, for example when we start coming out of an ice age, the warming ocean releases some C02 from the oceans, adding to the warming. Other effects, such as Milankovitch cycles occur over many thousands of years."

To which Bubba responded:
"And, of course, this is the most important question but the hardest to answer."

Bubba asked, essentially, if the current temperature rise was unprecedented in the proxy record.

Your response, was to say that there might have been an exceptional event such as the asteroid that wiped out half the creatures on earth but.... "if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not."

Any sane human can look at the ice core records (both northern ice and southern ice), and recognize that virtually the entire range of those records are CAUSED BY NATURAL CAUSES. Virtually the whole damn graph.

And does the ending segment, the ONLY part that COULD be due to human influence, look special and dramatic???

If it does look more dramatic to you than any other segment of that graph (all those other changes due to NATURAL CAUSES) then you are truly delusional and should seek professional help.