Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Again, what is a hypothetical example that would satisfy as proof to you?

 

You claimed that it has been scientifically proven in AR5. Where is that ???

How is any hypothesis proven using the scientific method ???

 

Again, what is a hypothetical example that would satisfy as proof to you?

 

Right over your head.

 

I am perfectly capable of reading your post, but it does not answer my question.

What is a hypothetical example that would satisfy as proof to you?

For example, would you consider billions of yearly temperature data measurements from across the planet and collected over the course of decades to be proof that the Earth is warming? Would you consider chemical analysis of CO2 to prove that it absorbs infrared energy and does not release it into space (i.e. a greenhouse gas) as proof that increasing CO2 concentration can make the Earth warmer? Would you consider years of CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere, taken across the planet, as proof that the CO2 concentration is increasing? If that increase roughly match the pace that matches the warming trend, would that count as proof of a causative relationship? Would a chemical analysis of the isotopes of the CO2 in the upper atmosphere to demonstrate that the excess added each year is almost exclusively the type created by the combustion of fossil fuels count as evidence to you?

All of those facts, and more, are contained in the IPCC v5.

 

There is no hypothetical example. The hypothesis that the current warming is caused by increasing human CO2 emissions cannot be scientifically proven.

 

Oh I see. You think it is impossible. I am not going to try and convince you of something you already believe is impossible.

We are done.

 

It is impossible because the climate cannot be put into a test tube. That’s basic science and that is the scientific method.

 

Neither can we place orbital mechanics into a test tube and yet we somehow manage to launch rockets to the moon successfully.

 

The physics used to land a man on the moon is scientifically proven.

The only way to scientifically prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing our current warming is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere which is impossible to do. Hence it is impossible to scientifically prove AGW. All the evidence that you cite is circumstantial. There is correlation but no scientifically proven causation. And there is existence proof that the previous 9 warmings and coolings which occurred at the same or greater warming rates and maximum temperatures all happened at constant atmospheric CO2.

 

Ah, so the only way to prove CO2 is the cause of our current warming would be to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?

#Logic

 

When there is too much CO2 it goes into the upper atmosphere and affects temps in those cities, depending upon region, it's why the term "Global" exists.

 

Scientific method.

 

So the upper atmosphere is stagnant and CO2 from cities forms a CO2 umbrella over those cities which reradiates back onto those cities creating the urban heat island effect ??? Is that what you are saying ???

 

#NottheScientificMethod

 

A repeatable experiment on a scale large enough to encompass all of the variables and differentiation that reflect the global nature of climate. Oh, and you'd then have to prove that only specific molecular dispersion is then the cause if you differentiate between C12 and C14. We'll wait.

 

Good call.

"It is impossible because the climate cannot be put into a test tube. That’s basic science and that is the scientific method." (AFM)

Claiming the earth has to fit in a test tube (because that is basic science) to prove Global Warming is even somewhat caused by our CO2 emissions, speechless; for science to measure and determine a cause for something in terrarium is impossible because it's bigger than a test tube, is beyond silly. We would have to start at a terrarium, a fish tank, up to an aircraft hanger, and on an on. Such a waste of time is not worth it.

His silliness has been instantly proved by his basic scientific limitations.

 

First you would have to work on your reading comprehension, get back with me in four years.

 

To the bolded, I would note that is precisely the point of the OP.

Scientists developed climate models on supercomputers (i.e. a scale large enough to encompass all of the variables and differentiation that reflect the global nature of climate) and then compared those models against the actual temperature measurements over the course of decades (i.e. a repeatable experiment).

 

The models are only as accurate as the data that is inputed.

Look at the constant changing knowledge of Black Holes for example.. seems there are daily findings that changing the thinking of how they are formed ( the many ways) and why.. When a new finding is discovered you dont see scientists call people deniers and want them locked up...

 

I don't understand the "only specific molecular dispersion is then the cause if you differentiate between C12 and C14." Would you please rephrase that portion?

 

That's correct and the study from NASA noted in the OP concludes that the data being input into those models is largely accurate because they correctly predicted the observed warming.

First off, locking them up? What?

Second, the problem with this analogy is that the new knowledge on the formation of Black Holes is highly technical and the differences between new discoveries and old theories are only significant for those who study these astronomical issues. You'd have to change the analogy to say each time a new black hole was discovered or a new theory on black holes was confirmed or altered, scientists still had to waste time explaining to people that Black Holes are Real.

 

Clearly you do not understand the scientific method.

 

At least now you know that the only way to prove a Trumpet is retarded is to remove them from the atmosphere. Enjoy ruling the earth.

 

Unkind words those. ^^^^ So you have nothing on urban heat islands ??? Why do they exist ???