Prior to man all climate change, warming, cooling, was natural.
Since man arrived all climate change, warming, cooling, was natural. Or at least it was until someone decided to make a case for man-made global warming.
The point can be made that man is natural and anything man contributes to the environment this is in itself natural is also natural. Even Co2 derived from the natural process that led to “fossil fuels”.
(aside - if man is not natural then we’re going to have to revise that whole evolution thing, aren’t we)
The church of climate change argument is based on an assumed correlation between increased CO2 in the atmosphere, a generalized increase in global temperatures over time, and that these measurements appear to track each other. They do, but as you may have heard, correlation is not causation. When records of temperature vs Co2 are examined in detail there is a separation between the temperature changing and the Co2 conc. changing. What is seen is the temperature rises and the CO2 increase follows. You may dispute this, and that’s fine because it is not the point I want to make. It is something for you to think about if you want to.
One thing we do know is that CO2 is readily dissolvable in cold water. It readily comes out of solution as the water warms. This can be easily proven by experiment.
We can also see a direct correlation between sunspots and sea surface temperatures. This is a readily observable phenomenon.
There are other phenomena - cosmic rays, magnetic fields, position relative to the sun, other solar activity, magma flows, dark matter, dark energy, quantum entanglement, deforestation, cloud formation, etc.
All of the above are thinking points. Bear that in mind.
The point I want to make is that your question is not what it seems. You are not actually asking for proof that climate change is due to natural causes because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999
.What you are actually asking for is proof that man is not responsible for climate change. You are asking for someone to prove a negative.
Is that fair?
Let me put it another way. Pre-industrial CO2 is said to be 280ppm. Currently, it is 400ppm. That is an increase of 42%. Man is responsible for 2% or 3% of that 400ppm. Let’s call it 12ppm.
If, as the argument goes, man is putting excess Co2 into the atmosphere then why did it take from 1850 to now to increase from 280 to 400 when it should only have taken 10 years. We are being asked to believe that mans compounded Co2 contribution of 0.0007% per year since 1850 is responsible for the current climate.
CO2 is physically and chemically not capable of driving climate change at its current concentrations or at multiples of it. Venus is often quoted as an example of what could happen. Remember, Venus atmosphere is 96% Co2.
Without CO2 and H2O the daylight temperatures on the face of this planet should be heading for 200C in daylight, and dropping below -100C at night.
Yes, you read that right. CO2 protects the Earth from the Sun’s heat. Or at least that is what NASA says. Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere
TL;DR The reason we do not prove that climate change, global warming included, is due to natural causes is that it always has been and why should this period be any different. To prove otherwise is to attempt to prove a negative.
The onus is on those who claim global warming is man-made to prove it. Not running computer models with flawed data, false assumptions and fudge factors. Not presenting Schticky pictures. Not using false logic. But to prove it. Properly. and in a way all can understand it.
To actually prove this all that is required is a repeatable experiment that shows repeatedly that increasing Co2 conc from 280ppm to 400ppm causes a significant increase in temperature.
No one has done that.