As far as I can tell, the window into the future of Earth's climate comes from climate models. Which is why I always found it odd for some warmers to claim they don't matter.
_______________________________________...
Edit: These are you own words in the question about drought: "The general rule that I would follow would be, "If you don't know, assume the worst.""
That's the heart of the disagreement right there.
_______________________________________...
Edit2: Here's another one. You actually think this is science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
I am in the 97%. I believe that man has made a "significant" contribution to global warming. To do that I am having to take the science on trust. However by "significant" I mean measurable rather than huge.
I disagree that that necessitates a concerted course of action to change anything. I would also question many of the proposed actions. We need to ensure that any action taken will not have worse consequences than not taking them. No-one ever seems to do that analysis.
For instance, we are told that solar power is good because it is free. Well, coal is free, too. OK, coal has downsides but has anyone worked out what sort of area would be required to get all the UK's energy from solar? If they have they are keeping quiet. The UK uses 200 million tonnes of oil equivalent a year. Plants like Ivanpah would cover over 36,000 sq miles to generate that kind of energy. Where would you put that in the UK? Downside, or what? How many "green jobs" is would be needed to keep 36,000 sq miles of mirrors clean?
The things that bother me are that no-one seems to know all the causes of warming yet. This is how dozens of extra reasons can be russelled up at the drop of a hat. I would like to see a complete list of causes with a percentage applied to each. The largest cause may well be a natural one - I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Surely, that is what the scientists should be doing?
I don't entirely trust what the media tell me the scientists are saying. I would include the IPCC in that, too. My spin detectors always light up and I spot propaganda. Why not tell it like it is? Why do we need to know about scary scenarios that "might" happen. Why do we not hear of pleasant scenarios that might happen? Why is it that GW will make snakes, spiders, crabs and jellyfish bigger while anything that looks warm and cuddly will die out? Truth, coincidence or propaganda?
Finding one component of a possible problem then shutting your mind to anything else is not very convincing.
You can agree or disagree, but you can't prove a thing. GHG is a term concocted by PR agents and other evil people to impress mental midgets so they would go out through the world and proclaim they really knew something. Alinsky clearly stated in his rules for radicals, "He who controls the language controls the masses." GHG is one term made specifically for controlling the masses. CO2 does not have any magical properties which help the earth retain its heat with any significantly greater effect than other gases. They all provide some effect, some slightly more than others. But CO2 was selected by evil people to scare the misinformed and thereby gain control of the masses and their fortunes. No one on this site can declare that it hasn't accomplished that in some degree.
Back in the 60s and 70s Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, Jimmy Hansen and H. H. Lamb, to name a few, were part the many calamity howlers that were scaring us with an imminent Ice Age which was caused by CO2.
The vast amount of people who believe that CO2 has magical properties, like Jeff M who states, "People aware of the science generally agree that man is the cause of excess CO2 and CO2 has been the main driving force of the current long-term warming trend," are wrong, just grossly wrong. First of all the statement, "People aware of the science," is historically a foolish statement. There is so much science that we are not 'aware' of. We are learning about this science every day and with every discovery many more questions develope among the intelligent. The truth is that we don't even know how little we know. Then there is 'generally agree' which may be true but it would be so general that it would not have any significance. "That man is the cause of excess CO2." Define excess. How do you know what 'excess CO2' is or is not? You don't and until you do those words are meaningless. "and CO2 has been the main driving force of the current long-term warming trend." You don't have the slightest amount of proof as to that, in fact it wasn't too many years ago that CO2 was thought by many 'in the know' that CO2 was going to cause an Ice Age. Furthermore:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
0.87 degrees in 353 years is not a out of the ordinary in Earth's natural cycles, in fact quite ordinary. History shows that the Earth has been warmer and the earth has been cooler, that is indisputable and only a con artist would make you believe otherwise.
I don't mean to pick on Jeff M, but he stated with exact clarity what the rest of you greenies allude to and when you analyse it, it just becomes words with no meaning or intellectual value.
The actions of the greenies is a classic example of playground bullying. A lot of jabber jaws, similar to a pack of wolves, get around an individual who stand up for his rights and principles and like a pack of wolves tear at the intellectual flesh of the seemingly hapless individual. This is playground action and not actions that any honest man would want to have a part of.
But that is what one would expect from one of Goebbels' disciples.
Well it is all changing, We use to have, it will be catastrophic, 50 million climate refugees, countries underwater, starvations and famine, to it will bad and cost a lot of money in the long term.
What my opinion is,
1 A little warming would be nice (if we get any that is)
2 It certainly does not seem that our climate is at all sensitive to CO2
3 The only empirical evidence of changes cause by CO2 so far, is improved plant growth and receding deserts,
4 It is almost certain that adapting to any changes will be a lot cheaper than trying to reduce CO2
5 It is highly unlikely that we will ever get any global agreement on reductions anyway.
6 Much more sensible to put all our efforts into researching and developing safe nuclear.
We disagree about whether or not it's safe to do nothing. Ottawa Mike and Kano are fine letting future generations deal with any problems that will occur.
And Maxx, while you may not know that what you are saying is false--it is and that has been explained to you over and over again. You would not be able to find a single legitimate scientist that agrees with your nonsense about oxygen and nitrogen--and that would include people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.
I guess it doesn't count as lying if you're completely delusional, but it doesn't reflect well on your mental state, either.
OM
I agree. About that being the heart of the disagreement.
To the whiners I don't see the Prophet of Global warming changing his carbon footprint. Yet he expects others to kill their economy for our Great Great grandchildren; while we saddle them with debt. This debt was created by paying for today's comfort without creating infrastructure or new technology to help pay it off. We should have as much compassion for them in relation to a viable economy as you want with temperature.
Remember the masses aren't Zealots. They think with their wallets. They aren't ID 10 T's like the California government.
What we disagree about is money.
The world is clearly warming.
Global warming deniers have a dozen excuses why we should do nothing.
Those of us why recognize and admit that global warming is a problem know we need to spend money to address it.
Global warming deniers don't want to do that.
It's the same attitude as we see in politics that we don't want to raise taxes to pay for the services we use.
Some people want to pass that debt on to the next generation.
And you see the same sort of folks, not taking responsibility for our actions today.
It's an attitude that it's okay to steal from our grandchildren, just because we can.
I never said CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. It is a greenhouse gas.
But it's far from being the most important greenhouse gas, that status belongs to water vapor. Even Trevor admits that water vapor is responsible for as much as 70% of the Greenhouse Effect. But of course the Greenhouse effect only provides about 33k of the Earth's average temperature of about 288k. So the Greenhouse Effect is far from being the major player for heating our atmosphere.
The fact is, non-greenhouse gases like oxygen and nitrogen which comprise about 99% of the atmosphere do about 89% of the atmosphere's overall warming.
-----------------------
The uncertainty is really about doing anything.
Some people are like ants, and plan for the winter. Others are like grasshoppers, and don't let the winter get in the way of playing now.
With the exceptions of a few kook, like Madd Maxx and Sagebrush, most skeptics say that they accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And most warmers acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty to the effects of global warming. Is our disagreement on whether this uncertainty is good or bad news.
Kook is right, Maxx: "non-greenhouse gases like oxygen and nitrogen which comprise about 99% of the atmosphere do about 89% of the atmosphere's overall warming"
Absolute ignorance of science.
i agree, some warming due to CO2. The scarry part is what happens in the next 100 years? Uncertainty is unfortunate. How can anyone be so certain as to be a denier?
I think we can put Zippi62 in that category as well. People aware of the science generally agree that man is the cause of excess CO2 and CO2 has been the main driving force of the current long-term warming trend. Things scientists disagree on, and debate, are things such as effects, weather change variations, and so on.
