-->
@Greyparrot
Well how much exactly?
You just made my point for me
Climate change is real
Posts
Total:
263
Define this exactly. Is that 90% 99%....
Would we need to do something different in the changes we make if it was 90 and not 99? Of course not, you are just petifogging.
.
-->
@Vegasgiants
I just did a word search for "around 100 percent" and found nothing in your source.
In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. There's multiple studies on this
And some people get lung cancer having never smoke tobacco in their lives. Doesn’t change the fact that cigarette smoking should be avoided.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yiu want me to cite EXACTLY......but yiu get to use a range. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
A range would be better than nothing.
-->
@Greyparrot
But what happened to exactly? Now suddenly its not so important to be exact. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
He wants to pettifog. This is how conservatives act, as I posited in a recent thread.
-->
@Vegasgiants
I'll settle for either. Heck, even an exact range is better than nothing.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't care what you will settle for. We both agree that science does not have to be exact
-->
@Vegasgiants
so where is your range? estimate? anything?
so where is your range? estimate? anything?
Someone get a fog horn
-->
@Greyparrot
Around 100%. Works for me
-->
@Vegasgiants
Source? Your previous source made no mention of any range.
Again, what does the word "around" mean. 99%? 99.999%? 90-100%?
1-100% maybe?
Works for me
I suppose any unsourced number could work I guess.
-->
@Greyparrot
Around 100%
Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.
Range is not required
-->
@Vegasgiants
That report has no mention of any range or the number 100 or percent. I did a complete word search of the entire document.
Do you have another source maybe that does?
-->
@Greyparrot
I have lots more evidence
Its all lies!!!!!!!!!!! Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
I did a word search for AGW contribution to global warming...still nothing.
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.Already did.
This appears to be false. Please link to the post in question.
-->
@Greyparrot
We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
#134
-->
@Vegasgiants
that percentage refers to consensus. There's no claim of AGW percentage contribution to current global warming.
I too, can find thousands of articles that claim many scientists say AGW exists, whether it causes 1% of the warming or 100% of the current warming. I would like to know how much it contributes to the current warming. If you can't find any articles with any ranges or estimates, that's fine.
-->
@Greyparrot
Consensus on what? Cone on man just read it
The kind of comment that comes from someone who wears a ball cap every day.
Yup. Just like Ne-Yo. Dare ya to criticize him for wearing a ball cap to his face. He’d put you in your place, white boy!
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.Already did.This appears to be false. Please link to the post in question.#134
Post #134 is this:
AGW has caused significant increases in global temperature and will cause significant negative effects on the planet
This is pure assertion, not an argument. An argument must contain two or more premises and a conclusion. Since you have failed to advance a positive argument as you claimed, you may do so now.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How about you, do you have any sources that ascribes how much AGW contributes to the current warming?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No I'm fine. Debate it or not
I knew you wouldn't
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I did find a few sources that put the range at 60-70%...but they were kinda shaky on the methodology.
-->
@Greyparrot
How about you, do you have any sources that ascribes how much AGW contributes to the current warming?
No.
Arguments matter, arguments sometimes require raw data/observations. Sources only matter in debate when they serve as public records for raw data and observations.
Since I am familiar with attempts to understand and model the climate I can tell you that anyone who gives you a % of warming caused by humanity is almost certainly relying on fatally oversimplified logic.
The power transmitted by convection and conduction cannot be quantified (to any useful accuracy) by any simulation or measured by any existing network of sensors. Without that critical dynamic being accurately modeled there is no way to assess the impact of secondary factors in power flow (like scattered blackbody radiation) nor assess the effect of man made power release (such as the heat released from nuclear reactors and burning hydrocarbons).
In simple analogy: You can't predict the effect on temperature of lighting a candle in a room when you don't know exactly how insulated the room is and what the mechanisms of insulation are.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is pure assertion, not an argument. An argument must contain two or more premises and a conclusion. Since you have failed to advance a positive argument as you claimed, you may do so now.
Do you know about the IPCC?
They are a United Nations authoritative group comprised by the most experienced climate scientists from around the world.