/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11022008
that's entirely intentional, it's a graph of past models compared to present temperature observations to show exactly how accurate it was.
Now have a more recent, model.
Note: most uncertainty comes from the impossibility of predicting human emissions. Each different scenario makes different assumptions about the level of GHGs emitted by humans.

>>10999916
global average temp change != local temperature change

>>10970174
Virtually everything you've stated is just plain untrue. We know exactly how much of warming is caused by the sun because we've been closely tracking solar irradiance, we know it's not orbital variations because we know exactly the timescales they occur on and there has been no shift in orbital eccentricity over the period of warming. Volcanoes certainly aren't the cause as they emit an entirely different carbon ratio than fossil fuels so we can track their emissions. Oceanic streams certainly aren't to blame as they don't effect the total energy balance of the planet, only how it's distributed.

However what we do know is Greenhouse gases have risen massively over the last century, we know humans are entirely the cause by examining the ratio of carbon isotopes now in the atmosphere, we know the greenhouse effect has increased because we can measure to total outgoing long wave radiation into space. As well as measure the cooling in the stratosphere as more heat is trapped in the troposphere.
tldr; cope harder

>>10950140
different models diverge mostly as they predict different levels of human emissions, some model scenarios where we significantly curb emissions others model scenarios where nothing is done.

>>10766775
could you at least try to hide the fact you're a russian shill?

>>10735712
You are correct that government action is the only way to actually make a dent in emissions. You're incorrect on other things. Net zero emissions by 2050 will limit warming to ~2C which would be a best case scenario, but doing nothing puts us at closer to 5C by 2100.
Significant government action in the form of a carbon tax etc, more aggressive tax credits for EVs renewables etc can shift us into the 2.5-3C range by 2100 without causing significant economic damage which wont be catastrophic. As for climate sensitivity being lower you'll need to provide a citation.

>>10699109
Exact amount of warming is mostly dependent on how aggressive we curb emissions, as it depends on human action it's impossible to predict.

>>10667456
Pick your poison, each model assumes different levels of action taken. If we do nothing say hello to RCP 8.5. Currently most think 4.5 or 6 is more likely.

>>10660665
It's all dependent on how much action is taken, here are some different scenarios the main difference between each one is how aggressively emissions are stopped.