The reason that it is important to keep track of how well the predictions are being met is to have an understanding of whether the effects if global warming/climate change are exaggerated or not.
I understand that, but given the nature and scale of the subject under discussion, it's just absurd to demand accuracy down to a score or two of years. In the scheme of planet-level processes and events, the entirety of human existence is but a "blink" temporally speaking.
I get that people want to know if they need to, say move from Miami, New Orleans, Houston or London this year or ten years from now, but in consideration of the processes and the object of them -- the Earth's ecosystems -- that level of precision is irrelevant and not realistically capable of being produced.
It's unfortunate that human lifespans aren't longer than they are, but that is what it is. How will future generations view us when they look back and see that we had enough pertinent, even if incomplete or imperfect, information at our disposal to have done something to avert setting off the spiral that resulted in "the mess" of a planet they inherited from us? Now what if those future generations are not 200 years distant from us, but instead our kids or grandkids?
Of course commencing to do something about climate change could all be for naught. But consider the consequence of that: new industries and innovations come about, new industries that would not have come about as quickly had we not been making such a concerted effort to implement lower impact ways of living our lives. That drives demand and catalyzes the creation of new suppliers, which in turn creates new jobs, which puts money in people's pockets. At the outset, the innovations will cost more. Over time, the innovations become ubiquitous and the price goes down just as happened with cell phones, phone calls, flat screen televisions, wrist watches, etc.
- The first quartz watches weren’t cheap. Some were even marketed as high-tech luxury timepieces. The first Astrons sold for $1,250 (the price of a Japanese compact car at the time), while early Pulsars cost $2,100. Thin watches produced by the Swiss and Japanese in the mid-1970s sold for $3,500 and $5,000, respectively. Today, one can buy a comparable quartz watch for $100 or less. I've actually received really inexpensive ones as "goody bag" gifts at fundraising events. The case build of them is lame, but their timekeeping ability is as good as most any quartz watch one can buy.
- In the 1970s, I recall seeing one our phone bills; it was ~$115. The bulk of that cost was due to long distance calls to Mississippi, California and Louisiana. IIRC, call-waiting and touch tone dialing were "big deal" features. Heck, back then, just calling from D.C. to Baltimore was long distance. Now what does one pay for long distance domestic calls? Nothing.
So when I consider the climate change issue, what drives my thoughts are the cost and benefits of doing nothing and later being found to have been wrong do nothing versus the cost and benefits of trying to do something and later being found to have been wrong to have tried. In that gamble/calculus, trying bests doing nothing.
) and the ice has come and gone, all independent of anything that man could have done back then.
