Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You found the specific discussion of the likely contribution to temperature increases in a specific geographic region and act like you can ignore the rest.

This is the line I want you to focus on from that link:

"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)."

 

Saying likely 41 times is till better than one unlikely based upon no real data.

 

Thus solar scientists blame the current modern warm period on solar activity and predict cooling based on the same.

 

It’s still a guess.

 

Scientists can clearly determine warming and cooling periods of the Holocene and they have. Are you saying they can't do it ??

 

In a vacuum, maybe. But I don't know of a single solar scientist would would argue that the current amount of warming trend matches solar activity with a high degree of correlation.

If you do, please let me know.

 

To someone who doesn't care about the facts absolutely.

 

Exactly. And the "theorem of least surprise" (attributed to Dr. Les Leifer - Physical Chemistry Professor - Michigan Tech - 1970) would indicate that current warming has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions based on the previous very similar 9 warmings and coolings of the Holocene.

 

Exactly. LIKELY. And not even everywhere do they claim it.

Your argument has never been humans are "likely" to be the cause of climate change or you wouldn't be in this much trouble with your own statements.

You support an unproven theory and I just exposed it for what it is.

 

There is plenty of data to so indicate. You think that science only started with satellites ??

 

Warming and cooling, let's see, there are fancy air-conditioners that do that. What scientists can't always tell is why something happened a long time ago.

Something happened in the past, that you want to compare to now, is 100% irrelevant unless you can prove the exact same circumstances existed then and now.

 

"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)."

 

You want to compare how well Helen of Troy fracked with how well Kate Hudson fracks, the fracking data can NOT exist.

 

There is a known lag of about 15 years, mostly due to ocean heat content.

 

You would prefer a dogmatic statement from your experts?

 

Your analogy didnt set up what was what. Here’s a simple question. Exactly how much of an effect has man caused vs nature just being nature, the sun, ect? You can’t answer it and neither can any scientist. All they can do is guess that the industrial revolution started on day X and measure the change since then. That’s about it. We’re guessing which is fine. 10 yrs ago a lot of experts said where I live in FL would be underwater or would be destroyed by hurricanes. They were a little off. Just a smidge, hehe.

It’s simple. Our country can cut off fossil fuels tomorrow and it won’t make any difference as long as China and India keep doing what they’re doing. It would destroy us of course but who cares about our country or the world economy when people living in huts in Africa need to be tended to

Maybe we should sink trillions into getting to Mars because it’s so much easier and practical to terraform another planet than say, Antarctica and all the inhabitable desert that’s here

 

I have heard the same, but again, I don't know of a single solar scientist who would argue that the current warming trend can be explained with a high degree of correlation by the solar cycle from 15 years ago.

 

That is not true.

 

Bizarre ^^^^

 

OTOH, arson is always man-made.

 

They can theorize to the best of their ability. But it all comes down to “man has contributed...”. That’s it. Not how much or how little or what will happen if we take X steps. They can guess. That’s all. I don’t particularly like those odds when some of their solutions would make my life miserable and possibly undo everything I’ve worked for when they crash the economy just to help countries that offer little to nothing. And the countries doing the most damage have zero incentive to change because they don't give a **** about their people much less the planet.

 

I said: "What scientists can't always tell is why something happened a long time ago."
You responded: "That is not true."

 

So here's the thing. It's a risk vs reward scenario. Scientists are going to evaluate the data and give us a range of possibilities because they are predicting the future based on extremely complex combination of variables. And politicians are not likely to support policy suggestions that would result in making your life miserable or to crash the economy.

But doing nothing will also yield massive economic hardship.

 

Much better correlation than the CO2 hypothesis since the rate of warming has slowed and CO2 increase has not. Also the ONLY correlation between CO2 and temperature was between the 70’s until the 2020’s. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

But we’re not doing nothing. We’re doing plenty. Not enough for some obviously. But not too much to ruin the economy either. It’s the only logical direction. We will all drive EVs when it’s affordable to drive EVs and not before. And when the problem of oil is behind us the problem with batteries and lithium shortages will hit us like a linebacker.

The freaking cartels own some of the biggest mines in Mexico. Want to talk a cluster in the making, hehe.