Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

This bloomberg article does a very good job of visualizing the Data from the ModelE2," which was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

You keep ducking the question. What does that have to do with proving humans are the primary cause for climate change Legal?

2nd time I've asked this.

 

And not a single passage in that report claims humans are the primary cause with evidence.

Thanks for proving my point once again. You can't prove what you claim.

 

In the analogy, humans would be cigarettes, not cancer. You have trouble understanding a simple direct analogy and you think are equipped to have a strong opinion on this?

You also don’t understand the concept of an analogy. It’s not literal.

Your second paragraph doesn’t even make sense... As I agree with it and it was my point... it’s not because climate can change without pollution, that pollution can’t cause the climate to change. It’s such a bad argument, I can’t believe some people use it.

« Well... the climate has changed in the past. » Duh. You think everyone, including climate scientists don’t agree with it? It’s part of the equation.

It’s not an argument when the opposition agrees with you and still think the way they do.

 

I keep asking because you continue to dodge the question. Answer it and I will address your next question.

Has the average temperature of the Planet increased in the last half century?

 

Did you think putting the words "with evidence" in bold somehow did something for you?

The article visualizes a **** ton of temperature data points (hint: that's evidence) and matches it against nearly a dozen potential causal explanations for the warming (hint: that's evidence) to reach the conclusion that CO2 in the atmosphere is the factor that most closely matches the warming observed (hint: that's evidence).

 

I already answered it in post #391

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...jections-right.566751/page-16#post-1071338728

So once again you are not being honest about the conversation and have ducked my question to you twice.

 

So you can't point to a single piece of evidence proving man is the primary cause of global warming.

Thanks for once again proving my point.

 

So the current temp is where we should try to maintain? And the IPCC report is routinely debunked in it's assumptions, conjecture and projections.

Historically when have humans and other species done better when it was warmer or when it was cooler?

 

Must be why they build new coal plants.

 

They assign TSI a value, no solar variability.

 

Should the planet be warmer or cooler?

 

I am not entertaining your terrible logic any further. Make your point or do not.

It has zero relevance to the study being discussed by this thread.

 

Maybe they could just use a Sharpie and "X" out the 2020 and write in 2050.

 

I can point to several pieces of evidence that prove man is the primary cause of global warming and I already have.

Here is another: The isotope for the CO2 being amassed in the upper atmosphere matches the type of CO2 created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

Capability depends upon tools, and even with tools, a perfectly natural event or group of them could cause a cascade of events. If we saw a perfect storm or cascading weather event today we have the tools to see everything better, a hundred years from now probably much better tools. Whether or not cascading weather events happened in the past, or what caused a period of warming or cooling, might be impossible to discover.

Archeology, that is basically what trying to find out what happened to climate before is like, it just isn't always capable. Looking at fragments, may give us some idea of what the whole picture is like, but for all we know Venus de Milo might just have a huge wart on her arm or a tattoo.

We can look at some written records, see some geology, see some archeology, see some layers in common miles apart, but in the end their comparison of warming periods in the past without accurate tools having existed then, is like comparing the grain of Egypt in the time of Caesar to Native American Indian corn; some things just can't be compared at all.

 

No, you have not answered the question. The closest you came was "Say it has."

Do you believe that the average temperature of the Earth has increased during the last 50 years?

 

Well they used to call it global cooling, then global warming, then climate change. But they assert that we humans can change the temperature and change the climate so don't we first need to establish what temperature would be the proper temperature if we have this power they claim?

 

Then quote them in the document you pulled them from. And Harry Potter books don't count.

Once again, prove its the majority of CO2 and that CO2 is the primary cause for climate change.

See why you keep losing? You can never get to the specific facts you claim support your argument.

 

That is entirely accurate and I agree that there are limitations. But folks continue to trot out the fact that previous warming events took place before humans without acknowledging that we can still analyze the likely causes of those previous warming cycles and decide whether they can explain the current warming cycle.

 

Answer me something first. Do you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

 

Sorry sport you've ducked too many questions to give you a free answer to one you just made up.

Now, either quote your links where there is actual proof that man is the primary cause for global warming or just give up.

 

You aren't even willing to answer whether you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Anyways, here are some more links with ACTUAL PROOF that man is the primary cause for global warming.

https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php

 

lol Once again you can't even read your own links

Human influence has likely contributed to temperature increases in many sub-continental regions.

Not only can they not prove its the primary cause for climate change they can't even say with validity its contributed at all or even globally! They have to preface it with "likely" and only in specific areas.

Read your own links dude.

 

We can more easily prove there are more Chinese and Indians riding scooters and polluting their asses off than when they rode bicycles, only because of Kyoto being related to Clinton.

Can we prove, without any other explanation, that much of these climate changes are mostly caused by humans, to you? Probably never. It would probably be like telling a fracking Moslem or "liberal" Democrat that Saddam was allied with Al Quacka:

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

The resulting brain fart of the "liberal" trying to read that is usually too funny; the "liberal" hive mind is just too strong of a force, but sometimes not nearly as great as the exhaust sniffing conservatives looking for lean or rich.