/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7485471
>Wrong again. See pic.
That pic is laughable. Yet again you've shown that either you are making purposely misleading arguments or are just so grossly incompetent that you can't see that someone else's argument is purposely misleading. I'm betting the latter.

All that's been done is they took 102 possible scenarios (involving variables such as solar and volcanic activity) and averaged them. So it's essentially taking everything that didn't happen plus what did happen, and saying that the average of these is not what happened. Not very surprising! If you want to see if the model is actually accurate, try putting in the true values for the variables. This is done every time the IPCC has tested its model. Not only is it accurate, it shows that without the anthropogenic contribution temperatures can't be predicted.

>Not really. Humans increase CO2 by a small amount.
How is going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm a small amount?

>Much more CO2 has been released naturally, as a result of the slight warming we've experienced over the past century.
Then why aren't the CO2 levels decreasing once 300 ppm is hit like the other Milankovitch cycles in the past? The difference between now and then is solely man's emissions.

>1) You can't prove it because you have no control.
One does not need a control to measure how much CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. Nor do you need a control to deduce the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

>2) There's no evidence it will run away. CO2 has been much higher in the past and warming didn't run away until the Earth was burnt to a crisp.
No one is saying it will run away. The problem is the rapid warming, not that the Earth will be burnt to a crisp. Once again you have misleadingly phrased the argument.

>>6582136
>>6582125
The /pol/ people aren't even here yet.
You can tell they're here when the thread gets flooded with copypasta graphs allegedly showing that climate models don't work.
I'm going to preempt that