But this is conflating uncertainty over
how much for uncertainty over
if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened,
is already having severe effects.
Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were
10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.
So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?
Right now and for the past 15 years or so -- the fire is just smoldering. No significant rise in surface temperature. Now -- I'm not gonna tell you that there might be some global warming trend BURIED under whatever causes explain that pause in temp. rise -- but I AM gonna tell you that the "models" were not worth a shit in PREDICTING IT... A reasonable person with appreciation for math and science would deduce that whatever SUPERPOWERS CO2 is said to have -- SOME OTHER effects are in play and are NOT accounted for. So my position is -- Climate science has jumped the shark with the CO2 fallacy for politcal/economical reasons and is only lately paying attention to some fundamental science of how the Earth distributes, dissapates and stores heat.
And I don't want to derail this thread with a science discussion because it's been allowed to remain in Politics because the discussion was about policy. But there are HUNDREDS of threads in the Enviro forum about each one of these issues in detail. And I'd welcome you to join us there to discuss the "nutters" and "enviro-nuts" and why the science is ANYTHING but settled.
Looking at your
RealClimate link in another response of yours, I came to this quote:
Q: What about temperature projections for the future?
A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.
Your assertion that there's "no significant rise in surface temperature" carries less weight when the experts you're quoting disagree with you. And citing an expert's credentials and quoting him, without admitting that his position is actually contrary to your own, is being less straightforward than you could be.
As to the "small" increase, what those experts are also saying is that a global change in temperature does not need to be a large number on the Celsius scale in order to be a drastic force for change. There's just no reasonable disagreement anymore that an artificial and rapid increase in global temperature, following the trend we're experiencing now, will have Bad Consequences for humanity. I agree that the science can still stand to improve (it always can), and that the pause in the temperature increase clearly tells us there's more to be learned (there always is).
But there's simply no substantive science telling us man-made climate change will work out OK, just minor causes for doubt, which are totally negligible when taken together with the mountain of evidence that it won't. And that in a nutshell is why I take the position it's well past being reasonable for the GOP to go on denying man-made climate change and resisting legislation to ameliorate it.
PS I see you've responded to another post of mine, but I think I've made my point here. After all, if westwall doesn't like any of those quantifications of human-driven climate change, there's thousands of others to rebuke his claim. Besides, I think it
is time I branched out from the Politics sub-forum...
