Well as long as it was not man made it has no relevance to this debate
That is where you are COMPLETLY wrong and where this debate will end as we will go round in circles forever.
Junkyard:
Note though - the correlation only applies if the NASA GISS global anomaly data is correct - if you apply an alternative temperature record to it, such as UAH satellite data or or even the southern hemisphere mean sea surface temperature then the correlation begins to fail - I've already noted the difference and potential bias within the GISS data.
What would be really interesting would be to plot the hawaii temperature records *only* against the mauna lea CO2 data and see how the correlation works...
PS: I wonder if its wise to set your global reference for CO2 levels in a series of islands famed for their volcanic activity?
Z11, that makes life easier. Your comments about Mauna Loa and Hawaii temperature records are a good indication of where you're coming from!
Hainey, I think you're right that this one is going to go round and round.
hainey, do you have any understanding of potential mechanisms for these cycles which you could then apply to the current situation and explain therfore why it is relevant/likely to happen again?
That is where you are COMPLETLY wrong and
Wow yet more powerful use of logic, reason and data to support your opinion.
A-A Of course he hasn't he accepts that the cycle does not account for man made C02, he accepts that current levels are above the levels in the historical cycle but for some reason he does not accept that this invalidates the cyclical explanation - he cannot explain why, he just repeats it and says other are wrong and claims the change is still natural. To say this is a weak argument is an understatement.
Z-11 - well we could use different measures and get different results but are you willing to argue that C02 is not increasing and that it is not a Greenhouse gas and that it has no forcing effect? Assuming you accept these points - no one disputes this do they?. How - that is by what mechanism- would temperatures not increase? What would negate the forcing effect of this C02? You need to explain that as well as criticise the data presented.
What point are you trying to make with this? What percentage of C02 comes from volcanoes and what percentage from humans? 0.3 billion tonnes and 27 billion tonnes respectively. Other data sources are available. Here go to the world data centre for greenhouse gases [url= http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/wdcgg.html ]here[/url] - pick some from the hundreds of quoted sites - go to their actual data - let me know whether Mauna Lea is skewed -- Do you think someone would have picked up on this by now ?wonder if its wise to set your global reference for CO2 levels in a series of islands famed for their volcanic activity
Midgebait - yes it will go round and round.
Junkyard, you will not answer my questions directly so i am going to have to make assumptions from the garbage you are typing. Correct me if i am wrong but you believe:
1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate
2. CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate
3. You are in love with the IPCC
Yes or No answers please. No spurious garbage trying to hide your complete lack of ability to do anything but quote the IPCC. 😉
1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate
Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?
Which come first the chicken or the egg hainey? Or did they evolve together? you're limiting your time horizon to only a few hundred thousand years in which atmospheric carbon levels have been very low even in interglacials.
The low levels have led to conditions highly favourable to man and our species has flourished to the point where it is threatened by its own over proliferation (the definition of pollution is soiling the nest to the point the species living in the nest suffers).
I disagree with 1/ because we know what happened when CO2 levels went very high in geological time - climate change that led to mass extinctions such as in the Permian.
I agree with 2/. Low CO2 is only one of many factors that combine to give conditions favourable to the accumulation of ice at the start of a glaciation and even if it appears to lag slightly it is not totally out of step. High CO2 at the end of the cycle simply buffers the climatic change that takes place due to astological factors IMO. Without the high end of cycle CO2 the conditions as the earth plunges into a cold period would be even more severe.
3/ I'm in love with my wife
Junkyard, you will not answer my questions directly
😯 I listed them one by one and then answered them - how more direct do you want?
am going to have to make assumptions from the garbage you are typing
Why are people constantly questioning you if it is really me that is spouting garbage? Re read the entire thread – count the people who question me count the people that question you let me know the result? 🙄 I just have a greater tolerance for idiots than they do and have hung in
No spurious garbage trying to hide your complete lack of ability to do anything but quote the IPCC.
I know I just lie awake at night wishing I was more like you and could just keep making unevidenced , unreferenced , spurious claims and assertions as "proof" of my opinion. I wish I had your grasp of science and erm green taxes. I wish I could have the [s]stupidity[/s] courage to link up a graph from a paper that disagrees with my interpretation of events as some more "proof".
Hainey this is getting too much like the playground for me. If you want to have a debate and both ask and answer questions then we could continue if you just want to ask questions without answering anything whilst having petty snipes [ I am also guilty of this can we both just stop?] then really what is the point?.
Myself, a-a and Edukator have all asked you a series of questions if you wish to reply.
So I will asssume by the fact that you STILL won't answer my questions that you don't know the answers?
They were 3 simple questions really!? - Just following your example.
As you are unwilling to engage me, i will explain what i am trying to get at.
I think you are being too blinkered with your thought processes, and really ignoring a lot of other contributory factors.
I feel like if I held a microphone to your brain it would sound like this:
Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2
Yes CO2 is high at the moment and yes it is a greenhouse gas, but, if it is that much higher than has been seen before, why have temperatures not followed suit?
You seem unwilling to consider past rises and falls in CO2 levels yet they if you look at the pattern we should be at a peak right now?
You are quick to devalue ANY other scientist who disagrees with the IPCCs opinion yet when facts are presented regarding UEA and IPCC exageration and a tailoring of data its ok - people make mistakes.
I just find you, well, very one dimensional.
I know we will never agree, i don't expect us too, but, i would ask of you, like a scientist should, read all the data presented and look at the bigger picture.
Don't lie awake at night thinking of me, its creepy.
hainey, whats your favourite colour?
Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?
I am not saying that i am categorically right, i would never be that arrogant 😉 , I agree with you, i don't know, they might do, and like a certain split in the scientific community i am leaning that way. What I am trying to say is that they are not insignificant and can not be dismissed as such. At the moment the earth is no worse off than it ever has been, and all we have going forward is computer simulations.
Oh, ermmm, White.
I'll have a go at the answer Hainey.
1. Other factors have driven temperature change in the past (lots mentioned in this thread) and continue to be involved.
2. CO2 concentrations have generally followed temperature as a positive feedback (e.g. CO2 being less soluble in warmer water).
3. Man turns up as an additional factor and CO2 concentrations increase due to our emissions causing an imbalance in the generally stable natural sources and sinks.
4. The additional effect of our emissions drive a temperature change, in addition to natural factors at work, which this time lags CO2 emissions by an order of decades due to the thermal intertia of the system.
5. Men with beards and sandals try to assess the relative contribution of all of the factors (natural, human and feedbacks) to work which makes the most significant contribtion and to predict where the new 'steady-state' temperature of the system is going to end be.
6. People on mtb thread argue about the above.
How's that?
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree with the 1st bit, 2nd bit to be determined
4. To be determined
5. Agree
6. Agree
Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?
I am not saying that i am categorically right, i would never be that arrogant , I agree with you, i don't know, they might do, and like a certain split in the scientific community i am leaning that way. What I am trying to say is that they are not insignificant and can not be dismissed as such. At the moment the earth is no worse off than it ever has been, and all we have going forward is computer simulations.Oh, ermmm, White.
well you managed to answer one of the questions!!!
Why do you think the cycles are relevant, which scientists have provided you with evidence to make you think this or is it just your hope?
I thought I'd have a look at this graph again
[img] 
[/img]
And thought it would be interesting to see how this close comparison worked in the grand scale: GIS Temperature (red line) plotted against Mauna Loa CO2 levels (green line) from 1958
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2 [/img]
Crikey, just look at the correlation, look at that matching upward curve - categoric proof!
😯 ???
Sorry if I am repeating anything - haven't read the past 18 pages (seems to be quite emotive!)
The term GLOBAL WARMING is misleading. Yet the average temperature is getting hotter, but for the average human being with our short concentration span all we will see is CLIMATE CHANGE. The fact that the see is on average 1 degree hotter is not something we will notice. The fact that we get more regular thunder storms, tropical summers and extreme cold at winter is something we notice. These are linked and the more the earth's average temp increases the more unstable our weather will become.
I haven't analysed all the data or spoken to all the scientists. However, over the past 12 months the 17 nations with the biggest GDP output (between them represent >90% of global CO2 emissions) have all agreed to put measures to reduce CO2 emissions into their domestic laws. These are the very countries that have spent the most studying the science. If they think there is a problem I don't see any point in me doing my own research. I also think there is a problem.
🙂
I'll be a climate expert after reading all these graphs and charts etc! 😆
so we have lies, damn lies, statistics and now Z-11 statistics.
You posted a graph, using the data you don’t agree with, to criticise a correlation WTF are you doing that for? Honestly do you even know? Correlations are maths not graphs with altered scales to “prove” your point of view. Where is the temperature scale? Why does the temperature no longer increase? Why is it a straight line without much variability? What intervals have you used for it on your non displayed temperature scale? Why have you altered the carbon ppm scale? If you want to criticise a correlation I would actually do the maths with the data and actually DO a correlation, work out what % of warming it accounts for and work out what the likelihood of this occurring by chance was– I would not just post up an ill defined un scaled graph to counter this. Very poor indeed.
I also note you don’t want to continue criticising the C02 measure do you? It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science.
Hainey so you accept that C02 is increasing due to man but you think it is debatable as to whether this will have an effect on temperature or climate? 😯 You really think we could increase the ppm of a greenhouse gas and it would not have any effect – I cannot believe you think that is credible , at face value alone it is laughable. So when we we add something to the system A FORCE it is debatable as to whether it will have an effect. For your account to be correct then eithe rcause and effect is incorrect, C02 is not a greenhouse gas or something is negating it's effect [as the ppm increase shows the C02 is not being absorbed by the carbon cycle]. So have you a either no cause and effect oC02 is not a greenhouse gas or a great cooling mechanism to suggest that everyone has missed? Whish are you using as an explantion of ehy iot ios debatable?
Perhaps you and z-11 can e-mail off forum publish your therories and make the scientific community look mighty foolish
It's snowing again.
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree with the 1st bit, 2nd bit to be determined
4. To be determined
5. Agree
6. Agree
OK Hainey lets bypass our sticking point. You say point 4 is to be determined, and I agree.
The difference between us is though, that I think there is at least a 99.9% chance of things turning out badly and you think that the chances are much lower. I don't know what level of threat you would attribute to climate change really happening as a result of our actions, but obviously it's not such a high chance that you are worried about it. (Just as a matter of interest, what would you say were the chances of the IPCC etc being right? 50% ? or less?)
Maybe if we look at our relative levels of confidence in the science we can move away from some of the rather polarised (no pun intended) discussions we've been having and talk about some other related issues.
You posted a graph, using the data you don’t agree with, to criticise a correlation WTF are you doing that for? Honestly do you even know?
Actually, I was doing it to review the reliability of the correlation between the data given in the graph you linked from skeptical science
Correlations are maths not graphs with altered scales to “prove” your point of view.
agreed, so why did you post one to "prove" your point of view, where you said "I prefer to look at what is happening NOW as man made C02 levels increase"
Where is the temperature scale? Why does the temperature no longer increase?
The temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!
Why is it a straight line without much variability?
Because the temperature variability is actually minute
What intervals have you used for it on your non displayed temperature scale?
straight data, from the horses mouth, no averaging
Why have you altered the carbon ppm scale?
I haven't - if anything your own graph has pushed the scale of the temperature rises to "match" the CO2 data
If you want to criticise a correlation I would actually do the maths with the data and actually DO a correlation, work out what % of warming it accounts for and work out what the likelihood of this occurring by chance was– I would not just post up an ill defined un scaled graph to counter this.
Well, that looks like a pretty significant percentage rise in CO2 compared with a VERY small percentage rise in temperature - its all plotted on the same scale - are you questioning the data I'm putting forward, its from an impeccable source!
Very poor indeed.
I also note you don’t want to continue criticising the C02 measure do you? It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science.
Criticise the CO2 measure? all I said was that I thought its very strange to take your [b]global[/b] measurement of CO2 at one location (in a volcanically active area) when your temperature measurement was taken in thousands of different data points across the world and averaged across them to give a global average anomaly, you'd expect by the same measure that all the different CO2 station data would be averaged to give a mean global CO2 rise
I cannot really see that you've [b]debunked[/b] anything I've said - in fact all you actually seem to have said is that one set of data being proven unreliable does not undermine the "overall theory" - I do wonder just how many sets of data being manipulated to the point of absurdness it would take for you to question something with a level of scientific rigour. Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in [b]data[/b] analysis, not in theoretical computer models.
Are you telling me that you think its unnecessary to apply a proper quality assurance audit to environmental data before its used?
When you say you've [b]debunked[/b] things, can you show me where you've debunked my contention that there is a warm bias in the surface record that does not reflect in the atmospheric record (if the CO2 greenhousing theory is correct, you'd expect the anomaly to be the same!)
You're welcome to play with the data sets yourself and compare it to whatever you like - no bias here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/plot/uah/plot/rss
you'd expect by the same measure that all the different CO2 station data would be averaged to give a mean global CO2 rise
and i would expect you to still criticise it 😀
SO you have ”proved” that as ppm increase by 1 then Degree c do not increase by 1 ... Who is claiming that for every increase of 1 ppm of C02 we get a 1 degree increase in temperature? Words fail me - I hope you realise what you have doneThe temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!
Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis
Despite my direct challenge on what you should do you with the data you give me plenty of words and no actual correlation or maths. Go and do some data analysis then. Dont speak do an actual correlation.
They are built from the data though aren't they. I agree with you it would be better to have actual data but as we are predicting the future, via extrapolation from current data [models], data is rather hard to gather. Extrapolation from know data is hardly a radical approach in science now is it ? I mean I predict winter will end and spring will follow - apparently I have no data for this and it is just a theoretical model can you let me know what happens about April time ?.I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis, not in theoretical computer models
Hainey so you accept that C02 is increasing due to man but you think it is debatable as to whether this will have an effect on temperature or climate?
Show me the evidence that this will have an impact beyond that of the cyclic CO2 and temperature cycles we have seen before. Show me the figures and graphs predicting that this CO2 will keep on rising and temperature will keep on rising. You must have this data around you to share with us?
SO you have ”proved” that as ppm increase by 1 then Degree c do not increase by 1 ... Who is claiming that for every increase of 1 ppm of C02 we get a 1 degree increase in temperature? Words fail me - I hope you realise what you have done
Can you show me a curve of temperature that closely matches the CO2 curve at any expression of correlation? if the two [b]are[/b] linked then sooner or later you need some correlation - you can get close with a factoring of 100 (ie, 100 ppm increase in CO2 makes an increase of 1 deg C, but its still not a perfect match, there has to be some form of link if the theory is correct.
Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis
Despite my direct challenge on what you should do you with the data you give me plenty of words and no actual correlation or maths. Go and do some data analysis then. Dont speak do an actual correlation.
Just what I tried - and I cannot get one!
I agree with you it would be better to have actual data but as we are predicting the future, via extrapolation from current data [models], data is rather hard to gather.
No its not, there's shit loads of it out there - the problem is that the unadjusted raw data doesn't seem to support the theory - it only works once you "value add" the data
Extrapolation from know data is hardly a radical approach in science now is it ?
Modifying your data before extrapolating is a pretty new area though
I mean I predict winter will end and spring will follow - apparently I have no data for this and it is just a theoretical model can you let me know what happens about April time ?.
Careful now, because that suggests that it could all just be part of a natural cycle over which we have no influence... oops, you didnt meant to suggest that did you 😆
The temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!
Have to agree with Junkyard that this is a particularly silly comment.
How can temperature and CO2 concentrations be measured on the same scale?
Because according to you RPRT, they are supposed to be connected to each other - ie, a 10% rise in CO2 must correlate to a predictable, verifiable (not necessarily matching) %age rise in temperature
OMG.. I made the huge mistake of popping in to see how things were going here only to read Z11's utter inability to grasp basic maths! A fact compounded by his total ignorance to his own ignorance! Now it's gone beyond debating issues relating to GW and has become a demonstration of ignorance of how to interpret lines on a graph! Good grief! I taught this stuff to 12 year olds for a living. At the time I used to look around for examples of how it's possible to make really basic errors in drawing up and interpreting graphs and charts as a lesson in using scale and interval correctly.. If I was still teaching, Z11 would be up on my whiteboard tomorrow with a bunch of 12 year olds mostly pointing and going, 'duh!'
🙂
It is actually worse than that Mark as he thinks this graph is a correlation rather than a plot of different information on the same scale over time. Z-11 you HAVE NOT DONE a correlation [b]again this is not a correlation[/b]. How many times do I need to say this could you just Google a correlation please – we have formula to do this not just a visual look at a graph with different data on it. Stop telling me you believe in data analysis and actually do some then – so far to my challenge to do some actual data analysis you have given me lots of words and not one number not one piece of analysis – whilst stating that unlike me you believe in data analysis... PRICELESS Thanks
Hainey – I admire your perseverance
I can demonstrate that C02 is a greenhouse gas, that man is releasing vast quantities of it, that the parts per million are beyond your scale, that man made Co2 was not a factor during your cyclical explanation, that Man made C02 is a factor today, that C02 has a forcing effect, Give you a value for this, show that more energy is entering the world than in the past [ it will warm up] – how you think that all of this does not break your cycle as an explanation is lost on me. [b]What exactly would it take to for you to accept the cycle is not a valid anymore?[/b]
You also have the problem of and I repeat [but with better sentence structure!]that
[b]For your account to be correct then either cause and effect is incorrect, C02 is not a greenhouse gas or something is negating it's effect [as the ppm increase shows the C02 is not being absorbed by the carbon cycle]. So you either have to explain cause and NO effect or why C02 is not a greenhouse gas or a great cooling mechanism to suggest that everyone has missed? Which are you using as an explanation of why it is debatable? You really do need to propose a mechanism that ameliorates the increase in C02 to try and give your account some credibility.
[/b]
Some more data for you.
As the current rate of increase of C02 is 2 ppm per year this means [ and I have quoted not from the IPCC just for you! ]that
At a current CO2 rise rates of ~2.2 ppm/year, CO2 levels by mid-century would reach 470-480 ppm
As the cycle peaked at 300 pcm that is considerably more and it is likey to reach 500 ppm – Remember , you posted on this, that as temperature rises less C02 is absorbed by the sea- it is likely that this rate of increase will actually increase. [b]at what actual ppm above your cycle will you consider your cycle to be a poor explanation/broken? Or will you just keep saying natural cycle[/b]
Z11 - In the past you've been one of the first to be picky about loose wording and apparently all important tiny discrepancies in different models.
Do you really think temperature and CO2 concentration can be plotted on the [i]"same scale"[/i] ? What does that mean exactly?
Did you get confused at the bit in Spinal Tap when they turned the amp up to 11?
Mark, the data's all there, its plotted against each other - shite, I've even linked to the data if you want to express it in a different manner!
Come on mark - the data's all out there! -are you saying that my graph does [b]not[/b] show GIS Temperature plotted against Mauna Loa CO2 levels ?
The fact is, that as I said - the data doesn't correlate - if one of you wants to go and show me a correlating rise go ahead, without manipulating the data its impossible to produce a rise in temperature that proportionally matches the rise in CO2, prove me wrong, go on!
Junkyard - come on,
When you say you've debunked things, can you show me where you've debunked my contention that there is a warm bias in the surface record that does not reflect in the atmospheric record
Just as a matter of interest who EVER in any climate change discussion or paper claimed that temperature would rise "proportionately" in line with CO2 concentrations?
(edit: or even "proportionally")
So RPRT - are the two connected or not?
if its not a proportionate rise, and there's no other correlation - then on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise
The world is massive with oceans n'stuff and I think you'd expect the temperature to take some time to catch up with the factors forcing a rise. Even heating water in a kettle (or Trangia) takes some time following the application of extra energy so I wouldn't necessarily expect temperature and rise in CO2 to follow each other instantaneously. Would you reasonably expect it to correlate exactly on a graph of annual CO2 concentration and temperature?
+ there are various feedback systems to account for + various other forcing factors not accounted for by CO2, but outside of previous natural cycles (such as cutting down loads of trees, rearing loads of cows, flying planes etc.)
But in answer to your question, which I can hardly believe you bothered to ask, yes they are connected.
And in answer to your other question, which again I can hardly believe you have bothered to ask as it has been asked and answered repeatedly
on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise?
On the basis that lots of eminent scientists tell me so.
Ah, its a magical rise that we cannot show any finite predictability to then?
+ there are various feedback systems to account for + various other forcing factors not accounted for by CO2, but outside of previous natural cycles (such as cutting down loads of trees, rearing loads of cows, flying planes etc.)
And you therefore suggest that climate models predicting future climate change are reliable on what basis?
Mark - I'll just remind you that the graph I posted expresses exactly the same data as the one above it originally posted by junkyard - GISS versus Mauna Loa - the only difference is that it expresses it less sympathetically, by not artificially forcing the scale of the GISS data to suit a purpose
And you therefore suggest that climate models predicting future climate change are reliable on what basis?
See my previous answer about eminent scientists.
how do I do big letters ?
[b][u]You have done a graph that plots two things on the same scale over time this is NOT a correlation [/b][/u]please google a correlation and stop repeating that you have done a correlation. You have done a GRAPH and a pi55 poor one at that. One that proves as ppm increase by one temperature does not NO sh!T sherlock.If anyone was claiming this it would be great but as no one is what is the point of your graph? Is it to demonstrate your inability to do data analysis?.
here I googled for you
It is not a graph is it... it can be shown graphically that is not the same thing before you claim that.A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables.
[url= http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/statcorr.php ]easy guide here - shows correlation then significance please READ[/url]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence ]wiki - bit more detailed[/url]
Where did I claim I had debunked anything - it is not a word I would use rather unscientific.
on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise
FFS so now C02 is not a greenhouse gas is that your claim? What next on what basis do I think that when I apply heat/energy to something will it increase in temperature? Do I really have to argue this with you really do I? Is that the extent of your objection?
What climate models do, like any other models used in science, is to consider all of these factors to the best of our ability, using things like chemistry, physics and mathematics.
If you have a better option for assessing the future effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations that's fab. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it?
Junkyard - I plotted a graph, I dont claim that I've produced a correlation, I claimed that [i]after looking at the data[/i] there [b]is[/b] no correlation
If I've got it so wrong, then simply show me the the correlating rise between CO2 and temperature!
According to the data, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 10% in the last thirty years - the temperature rise is minute by comparison!
however, I did say "Crikey, just look at the correlation, look at that matching upward curve - categoric proof" which was clearly taking the piss - remember it was you who posted the graph of GISS versus Mauna Loa to show us how accurately the rise in CO2 reflected the rise in Temperature - my graph was another look at the same figures!
Where did I claim I had debunked anything - it is not a word I would use rather unscientific.
"It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science." - by you, on this page!
Junkyard
You are avoiding the question, [b]AGAIN![/b]
Can you please, simply show me the figures and graphs predicting how CO2 will keep on rising and temperature will keep on rising. You must have this data around you to share with us?
What is your prediction for 10, 20, 50 100 years time.
What will CO2 levels be, what will temperatures be. Why? How will the temperature be linked to the CO2? What percentage temperature rise will you expect in comparison to CO2 rise?
And stick to the question.
Edit: Also can you add your theory on what is going to happen with Water Vapour over these time periods too.
What climate models do, like any other models used in science, is to consider all of these factors to the best of our ability
Like a long range weather forecast then? Except the models are written by hung-over students with traffic cones jammed on their heads.
