I fell in love with her <| sep |> Small terriers really are like getting big dogs in small dog packages . That is awesome . <| sep |> came here to say this lol <| sep |> Here ' s a figure 95 l . png that tells the story best . This figure is hosted by the IPCC , which is a consortium of the world ' s countries and climate scientists . The figure you see has been particularly peer reviewed and found to follow good scientific rigor . To be direct this is a very reputable primary source . You ' ll see two graphs . On the top graph , there ' s a big smudge of yellow . If you look carefully , you ' ll see there are actually a lot of different traces that make up the yellow . Each one represents a different run of a climate model which represents the core of our understanding of atmospheric physics . These models are very complex and little variances in how we treat the physics means they can give different results . By taking a lot of runs of data with slight changes to how we treat the physics , we can somewhat smooth out this effect and get an average value that ' s what the red line running through the middle is . For the moment , ignore the black one . Now go to the bottom graph . Again , there ' s a host of model runs the same models , as a matter of fact represented in blue . Again , the average of a lot of different ways of modeling the atmosphere is shown in the blue line running through the center of the model spread . There ' s one key difference in the two graphs . The bottom graph is what the models produce when we consider only natural forcings things like the sun , volcanoes , etc . The top considers those too but also anthropogenic effects things like greenhouse gasses , aerosols , etc . That is the only difference in how the two graphs were produced . Now , here ' s the neat thing . See the black line ? That ' s the actual , observed , climate data . That ' s what really happened as measured as a global average . If you don ' t include human impacts , the model doesn ' t reflect reality . If you do , it does . To be a bit snide QED . That we ' re able to accurately model what ' s already happened gives us a confidence that the models are working . It is impossible to disagree that the atmosphere is currently warming xkcd did a great job with this . What the graph shows is that warming is unequivocally being caused by anthropogenic human sources based on our current understanding of physics . If you want to know more about this modeling , the IPCC has a nice write up www . ipcc . chpublicationsanddataar 4 wg 1 ench 9 s 9412 . htmlTo concretely disprove what this graph says , you need to do three things 1 . Prove there is another mechanism that explains this warming and provide some evidence as to how it does so based in physicsthermodynamics . 2 . Successfully model the climate based on that mechanism and have it account for the change in historic data as well as accurately prog the future . 3 . Disprove the math behind the models that show anthropogenic effects are the driving mechanism . Since doing that is very difficult , most people who are skeptical will point out the models are incomplete . This is true , but that doesn ' t make them inaccurate see that they are currently modeling the climatic trends correctly . Then , they will say they could be written with a bias . This is possible , but somewhat able to disproven by running multiple different models with a wide variety of authors and different physics considerations . They will then result to pointing out an isolated incident where scientists sought to not release a study that they though could be misinterpreted , which has little bearing on the validity of the data actually being presented here . It is science ' s job to make a compelling argument based on the best information we have . To be very direct this is very close to definitive proof that we ' re the issue here . And this has been clear for a long time in the climate community . If you want to make a claim that this isn ' t true , you need to make at least as compelling an argument . I have yet to see one of those , and I ' ve studied this heavily . I hope that helps !