Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You should not define "proof" as anything different from "evidence in support of a claim."

And the strong correlation of those data points, combined with the causative element of greenhouse gas increases results in increased temperature, combined with the analysis and discounting for all other potential explanations for the warming all count as "proof."

 

It certainly doesn't support your claim that it is combustion fossil fuels. Because over the course of millions of years, Co2 and O2 levels have been higher/lower and temperature variances have been hotter/colder with longer periods of warming and cooling and none of it was caused by combustion fossil fuels. These are facts supported by data and they are undisputed.

Which means your assertion is pretty much debunked. Especially since we don't have enough data to support it.

 

Circumstantial evidence is not proof. And there is no causative proof that so-called "greenhouse" gases result in increased increased global average temperature. All you have is correlation. There is no proven causation.

You should not claim causation based only on correlation. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

Ugh. How many times can I explain something really basic: It is possible for humans to be the cause of the current warming even if they were not the cause of the warming 400 million years ago.

Consider the analogy.

Doctors still tell us that cigarettes cause cancer. And yet we know that Cancer existed long before cigarettes were a thing. If your theory were correct, then we could argue that it is impossible for cigarettes to cause cancer because cancer existed long before cigarettes were created.

 

That is not the only source of the causation claim, but I will set that aside and ask you something to determine your intellectual honesty.

Is it possible for evidence of correlation to act as evidence for causation?

 

1) Hypothesis: Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming.

2) Make observations: Experiment, let people pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that would have otherwise have been sequestered underground and formulate models that would predict rise in temperatures if hypothesis is correct. Gather data, measure temperatures.

3) Analyze and interpret the data: analyze, there is an increase in global temperatures as models predicted, interpret the data, Study Confirms Old Climate Models Got Their Future Warming Projections Right.

4) Publish results that can be validated with further experiments (rinse and repeat).


Experiments do not require the removal of CO2 to prove the hypothesis, only the addition of CO2 was required, and that the World continues to accomplish.

 

Venus.

 

No argument there, my point exactly! Although, on the other hand, there are plenty of documented cases where weather models perimeter have been found to influence finding that enhance their theories.. And no one can really argue that Global warming in a pretty good industry were MANY people are making a nice living, raising families and hardly want that to go away The way I see it is, the people selling the urgency of distinction of man by man from global warming have much more to lose then those that are skeptical ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

It’s circumstantial evidence. It is not proof.

 

Your first statement is incorrect. The hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current global warming.

 

The earth is not Venus ???

 

The problem with your super simplistic view is that not all people who smoke got cancer. The correlation suggests that it should, always cause cancer, shouldn't it? So, when a doctor tells us that a cigarette causes cancer and then someone doesn't get it, what does that say about what the good doctor said? I mean, lets at least be fair here for a minute. Even the worst evidence is that perhaps something like 10-15% of smokers developed a kind of cancer. So, for those other 85-90%, it didn't. why? Which goes directly to the simplicity method you're implying again about AGW. yes, the climate changes, we know and understand this. We just have about zero effective way to create a repeatable experiment on a large enough scale to demonstrate that the paucity of human CO2 contributions is entirely responsible for "all" "most" even "some" of the temperature rebounds we are currently seeing since the end of the last little ice age. So, be at least somewhat honest here.

 

Notice how you still didn’t provide any data? I did, and so did everyone else reading.

 

I told you several times now, I gave you a search string to use. I don't hold grown Men's hands, I simply instruct those I think are capable of the task, well I hope they are capable of the task If this is something you're not comfortable with, unable to accomplish or simply not willing to do then we're done Rahl.. ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

Good luck!

 

Just to be clear...do you accept that smoking causes cancer?

 

Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being 4x further away because of the Greenhouse Effect created by at atmosphere than is ~97% CO2.

 

The evidence suggests that at worst between 10-15% of folks who smoke developed some kind of cancer. So, for 85-90% of folks, it did not. That is the evidence. It doesn't require belief, or acceptance. Does it?

 

6th grade kids in school conduct experiments in earth science class showing that green house gasses cause warming, lol.

 

notice how you still can't provide any data? I did, so did everyone else. I've searched the thread and can not find an instance of you doing so. You have one final chance to provide it. If you fail to do so, you will remain refuted.

 

and how many times do we have to show you that data and evidence from millions of years ago specifically point to warm/cold/CO2/O2 changing and it has nothing to do with combustion engines or burning fossil fuels? It is an undeniable fact that you like to "conveniently" overlook.

Breathing can cause cancer. Cancer can also be hereditary. But using this example, you ignore that cancer is caused by many factors and specifically claim that cancer is caused by smoking. Without enough data to actually back that up. The data you want to use is conducted on too few people and not on a long enough timeline but you jump to that conclusion without merit. Even then, you try to claim that stopping smoking would cure cancer. It doesn't make logical sense at all. Your analogy is also bad.

Did it ever occur to you that many factors can cause a rise in temperature and in CO2 levels and not one specific factor? Did you also know that a rise in CO2 does not necessarily mean a rise in temperature? Temperatures can decrease over time despite a rise in CO2. Geologically speaking, we can prove this and scientists have.

 

IT IS MY HYPOTHESIS, NOT YOURS TO FRACK UP.

With any other claim or evidence of a natural cause to ANY Global Warming, your hypothesis would be STUPID.

The hypothesis cannot be set to claim only one-thing causes a global condition, when there are other things that can interfere (see NASA below).

Other examples of hypotheses:

http://images.myshared.ru/4/228340/slide_15.jpg

From the past, a denier, and what he claims it was fits what I just did:

“The global warming hypothesis states that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by mankind) will increase the greenhouse effect…”
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365g.html



“Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

 

OK, so do you believe that smoking increases the risk of cancer?

 

Well at this point I'm feeling you are trolling me. Same reply over and over, when it was really covered with a valid offer of a search that would produce all the information I could offer you.

O'well I tried ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

You take my analogy in a wholly unintended direction. I never claim that smoking is only source of cancer. Smoking can cause cancer, right?

 

Apples and oranges.. Cancer has proof of death, smoking is proven to cause cancer global warming are prediction.. There is a difference..