There are well understood probability models on HFGW. You may not believe in them, but they have been proposed. For example, I read this one. The problem is that the science has lots of non-linearity, so it if very difficult to extrapolate: "What is the Probability of "Dangerous" Climate Change" http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Impacts/WhatIsTheProbability.html
I'd say you are not being reasonable or realistic in suggesting the deniers of Einstein's science were justified because relativity was only a proposition. You must be aware there were already a prototypes of relativity scientifically established before Einstein. What Einstein did was to revolutionize the existing clumsy but nonetheless scientific theory, with stunningly clear logic. He brought to it extraordinary clarity and organization with general and special relativity and indeed, unified established classical physics with it. To say Einstein's relativity was merely proposition or hypothesis is nonsense. It is though, having no acceptable science to the contrary then or since, the kind of thing deniers of Einstein would have suggested at the time. In every real sense, Einstein's work was never anything but scientific theory, validated by pre-existing science and experiments. btw. I did not say Maxwell's equations or quantum mechanics needed relativity to be acceptable. Prior to 1905, using Maxwell equations, the speed of light could still not be precisely determined as it was taken that light required a medium for transmission. Relativity instantly disposed of that, by which the formula for length contraction was devised. So when using Maxwell equations (electromagnetic theory) with Einstein, the result becomes relativistic and more importantly, precise. There is no observation inconsistent with the fact that CO2, wherever it may come from, is a greenhouse gas in that it warms atmosphere. However it always will be possible to create hypothesis with which to refuse AGW, as it is in the same way possible to refuse Einstein. People still do refuse Einstein with their hypothesis! So no, simply developing non scientifically validated hypothesis , will not overturn Einstein or AGW. There are aspects of Einstein's general and special relativity that do not predict or resolve everything that is observed. So it is with AGW. To deny a basic fundamental science including the potential for associated dangerous outcomes, purely on hypothesis designed to deny and contradict science is absurd. As absurd and unreasonable as the denial of Einstein's science. AGW controversy is developed overwhelmingly in the realm of media hype and the politics of it all, not by science itself where AGW is established.
is this some sort of joke troll from you. do you not understand what you just posted? I am wondering if you are serious. your link is taking a look at potential sensitivities and projecting. the given in those hypothetical models is the thing you and I are discussing. The core issue here... there is no science showing that co2 drives our temperature yet alone man made co2. so there is no science showing climate sensitivity to man made co2. Surely, you can understand that. You didn't really think that was showing us evidence that man made co2 causes warming did you? that was saying that if a doubling of co2 causes warming from 1.4 to 7 c then given such a sensitivity project confidence levels... -- no science, no evidence, no legitimate sigma.
Right, I actually stated at the end - that this assumes that the climate models he sights are already correct, and he weights and reaches a projections from those about 100 years hence. Somehow what got posted was deleted (I tried to bold it and I think that instead I accidentally deleted it) So yes, that probability model is about possible scenarios in global temperatures based on some mixing model. But it already assumes that HFGW is true, which you and many other here don't believe. So you are correct. I can't start out assuming my conclusion as an axiom and going on to prove what I am already assuming. My point is that if HFGW is correct, the implications from probabilistic models already say that at year 2100 we are in deep trouble. That gives any reasonable human being, pause. And it should you too.
ok... wow that was a relief... at least I don't have to adjust my weltanschauung... with respect to people who strike me as smart enough to undertand core concepts of proof and evidence.
So we should take action and be deathly afraid due to a bunch of flawed models that have produced results that did not match reality for all the past years.
Not at all. The correct course of action is always based on Expentancy vs Risk. In this case, say your estimate is that the odds (Expectancy) of HFGW being true is 5%. The risk is, losing the Earth and turning into Venus (no one doubts that if the climate models of GW are correct, we have runaway warming). So, now, show that scenario to any actuary. Actually, you show that to any trader, and tell him, you have a 5% of blowing out your account and every generation after yours will be perpetually poor if you do blow out. Not just your family, EVERYBODYs' family. How do you deal with that risk? And not one in a million traders will entertain those kinds of odds, even though the probability is very small. Like I said, the odds of an asteroid striking Earth and annihilating all life is truly remote. It happens about once every 650,000,000 years, on average. And yet, we are already thinking about ways to deal with the potentiality of the event being realized. Runaway HFGW is orders of magnitude more likely. It should give you, pause.
So Greenland is melting away and now this... By the end of this century, areas of the Persian Gulf could be hit by waves of heat and humidity so severe that simply being outside for several hours could threaten human life, according to a studypublished Monday. Because of humanity’s contribution to climate change, the authors wrote, some population centers in the Middle East “are likely to experience temperature levels that are intolerable to humans.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/s...on®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0 Once wet bulb temperatures get above 98 degrees one can be naked in a front of a huge fan and still die from the heat. This what will be happening in the future unless things change and fast.
Yes, there is an interesting article about Greenland in the NYT which I did post earlier today. The story of the scientists' lack of planning (too much gear for a helicopter, etc.), poor understanding of climate, and feebleness makes for an interesting adventure tale. Even more importantly the article shows how the U.S. government wastes taxpayers money sending scientists on a meaningless Arctic junket. The only redeeming feature of the article is some of the landscape pictures of Greenland, which has not changed much since I worked on the North Warning System in the 1980s. As an interesting side note.... my daughter is visiting Iceland and Greenland during the U.S. Thanksgiving week. Unlike these scientists she pays with her own money and will be properly packed & prepared.
Oh, it is the old Climate argument that we need to be prepared for the worst case nonsense. I am surprised that you did not resurrect the old quadrant of 'what if we don't take action' absurdity. Here is the reality -- the probability of AGW being dangerous to the planet is effectively zero. The CO2 and temperature measurements are well within the statistical average when thousands of years are taken into account. The real temperature measures demonstrate there is no danger because the alarmist GW models have all completely failed to track reality.