Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You are literally arguing that it is impossible to quantify the rate at which the Earth is Warming? Or that CO2 emissions have ANYTHING to do with the warming? Seriously?!

 

Trump gets impeached by the RINOs, Biden gets elected, Biden's vice president resigns, Biden picks AOC as replacement, Biden gets impeached for what Dems claim Trump did, AOC turns our night lights into what North Korea looks like from space; let's not mention the little Acorns, just as powerful and well funded as our military, who put us RINO haters in reeducation camps. Come on, they can frack us all to hell if they win the next general election and you know it.

 

The OP is fodder for the gullible. It does not reflect the failures of the models. Cherry picked.

 

If government policies are based on the magnitude of global warming that magnitude must be quantified. Additionally the causes of the warming and the effect of government policies must be understood. Any policy to reduce CO2 emissions will do economic harm. And global warming based on current technology is net beneficial at least for the next 3 degrees Centigrade which will take us 100 - 200 years into the future. For example cutting US CO2 emissions in half tomorrow would result in only ~ 0.1 degree Centigrade in 100 years. So why force the damage for no effect.

 

I'm still trying to figure out that sentence.

 

If Nadler changes into swimming trunks in the next hour I'll begin to take this seriously.

 

How do they crack us all to hell ???

Your scenario is absurd.

 

If Greta Doom prophesies it, it will happen.

 

Thanks. Now I have that disturbing image stuck in my head. Have too think of the Easter Bunny, think of the Easter Bunny, ....

 

And you reached that conclusion based on something other than your feelings?

 

Just the facts. You fall for the OP due to feelings.

 

Well, at least we know one person who never watched the new Battlestar Galactica.

The whole democratic party is absurd. I'm not predicting anything with regard to what they might do. We mostly can predict the speech that says "we all must sacrifice for the common good," and thousand variations of that with each new Camelot.

 

I'm not watching, if it's on, I don't want to know, I might vomit from the mental picture.

 

I didn’t know they had a new Battlestar.

Agreed on the Banana Republic Party.

 

You have not presented a single fact as yet. The OP is a peer-reviewed study from authors at NASA.

 

Lol. This thread died back on page 23 when I asked for a real percentage of man made global warming and the best the OP's links could come up with was "likely" man made climate change exists with no real numbers or even a ballpark percentage could be mustered.

Same old fake news far left conspiracy theories

 

The thread is currently on page 36, your inability to comprehend the meaning behind the phrase "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9)."

 

It's on page 36 but died on 23.

You just proved what I already said. Your worthless fake science cant even put a ballpark percentage base for man made climate change yet you still tout the conspiracy theory that man is the primary source.

And that's why its died on 23.

 

The IPCC only “studies” AGW. They do not concern themselves with what percentage that comprises.

 

The phrase “extremely likely” has no statistical or scientific meaning. It is a phrase describing opinions.

 

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9)."

Let me know if you need further definition for the phrase "more than half."

 

Does the phrase "more than half" have a statistic or scientific meaning?

 

Got you some more "ballpark numbers."

 

LoL. I said ballpark numbers for the percentage of man made climate change. Was it really that hard to understand? And you still didnt do it.

 

Let me know when you understand extremely likely is not a number or percentage