The model was predictive with a high confidence interval of predicting the past and the future, meaning, the pattern of changes seen then was indicative of warming causing a CO2 rise causing more warming, and then pattern today shows a CO2 rise causing a warming. Someday that may cause more rise in CO2 like the past, which may cause more warming, which is one reason scientists worry about a runaway greenhouse effect in the long term, but anthropomorphic CO2 is the driving force now, and we know that. Here is the breakdown:

https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/r...icle_id=772662

The paper I cited goes through the challenge of making a causal argument, which is why they said:

They go onto describe how their model is used to create correlation to the highest degree to estimate causation. Their model is predictive of the past and present, while demonstrating the relationship of the past and present. It is like there is a crime scene, and their model for interpreting data can determine if there was a theft, rape or murder. The data that feeds the past shows a causal relationship of temperature causing CO2 rise, but the model can't explain the rise in temperature now to be attributed to anything else other than anthropomorphic CO2 rise. It is pretty simple.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/

I think you mean "Regardless" here. Meaning without paying attention to the present situations.

Irregardless would be a double negative. Like Irregular means to be non-regular.

Pet peeve. Carry on.

Right. Do you see the end of this? Very stable, right? Do you think it is a coincidence that humans were able to flourish during the period of climate stabilization, no longer needing to migrate to find food and having the ability to create civilizations with predictable stock yields from farming? Much of earth's history is utterly inhospitable to the type of lifestyle that we know it today. The subsequent highs of CO2 and associated rising temperatures would require dramatic changes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...otemps.svg.png

We are all in agreement that emissions have gone up, especially CO2 and CH4. The fact that the temperatures didn't follow them should make anyone question if something is missing in the equation. Right now we're debating over a 1 deg C rise in EPICA measurements over the average, but there were times when the temperatures were higher at much lower CO2 levels. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, these correlations makes no sense. I'm gonna venture out on a limb here and make a conjecture - there is some element that has a larger effect. Probably water vapor? I don't know! But looking at CO2 as the only demon has very little data to support.
If people want to reduce pollutants like CO, NOx, etc., then yes, by all means! But even if we reduce CO2 to zero tonight, there's no guarantee that this would result in any change in temperatures.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/v...ifference.html

Wait... are we looking at global averages? Or as measured at the Antarctica dome? Or Greenland?

It is in the chart in the upper right corner. Relatively speaking, modern civilization has sprouted from a period of stable climate relative to periods preceding it. This is the last 100k years with a very stable last 10k years.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/tempe...enlandTemp.jpg

https://www.science20.com/files/imag..._years_ago.jpg

So, because the global temperature has not so far increased proportionally to the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere per the models and records, you are questioning the accuracy of the same models that say the temperature should increase in short order?

My take on climate change is as follows:

NASA employs amongst the best scientists in the world and devote much of their website to confirming the climate change issues at hand. End.

When I was a kid (1980's) the ozone layer was depleting due to the use of CFC's.
This problem and remedy is fact. I cannot imagine the amount of keyboard warriors that would be challenging the issue if it were to have occurred today.

I question the implications from your source that the word "irregardless" has been debated for centuries, but this is too OT to care that much.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/clim...rming-faq.html

This news article answers a lot of questions in a single place, which is palatable for some. This image is really why there is cause for concern. The projections for 2050 and 2100 population shows the countries with the most population as India, China, Nigeria, USA, Pakistan, DROC, etc. There should be a huge rise in emerging markets and increases in standards of living, and we should expect a huge rise in greenhouse gasses as these countries grow and start to consume more resources just as we all have done. They will go through a faster industrial revolution and modernize, but we can expect huge increases. For reference, China had 650k people in 1960, 330k more than the US today, and it is more than double what it was today at 1,400k, but its emissions are night and day different. What happens when other emerging markets start increasing their emissions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

China’s Record Drought Is Drying Rivers and Feeding Its Coal Habit

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/b...y-climate.html

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=467

???
But temperatures have risen, *are* rising...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Co...2021_chart.png
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/wo...l-temperatures


*To YOU*. Not to people who understand how these mechanisms work.

It is well established that water vapor does have a larger effect, and that temperature rise driven by increased CO2 is reinforced with further temp rise due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere.

NO one is saying that CO2 is "the only demon". But it is a primary instigator...

??? If we reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to *zero* right now, we will *still* be dealing with the effects of the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so. So on that point you're kinda *right*! But the conclusion should not be "let's keep on adding as much CO2 as we possibly can!" We need to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions NOW, and there are non-disruptive ways to do that...

Unless we plant trees and create carbon capture systems.