"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential."
The answer to the 'question' is in the rest of the quote, the part conveniently omitted by these deniers.
You might make that case if the estimates of temperature increase were centered around zero, but they're not. While models are uncertain, they still provide our best guess at what will happen, and that's enough to generate serious concern.
The uncertainty should actually be cause for MORE concern, not less. We are running a huge uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere of the only planet that we live on, it boggles my mind that some people don't see that as a problem.
I really do not take much notice of what the IPCC says, their concluding statements often are wildly different from the research inside their extremely voluminous interior pages, they make so difficult to read it in full, that I doubt that more than a few dozen people know exactly what the IPCC documents say.
However when all the research inside has high levels of uncertanty, yet their concluding statement say they are 95% certain global warming is man-made, that is really ridiculous and has no credibility.
Doing something as a precaution for nothing is flailing your arms and accomplishes nothing. You try to pretend that you just want to do a little bit to save the planet. In fact you just admitted that you don't know. Destroying our energy sector and giving up more of our freedom for some wild idea that we might risk warming a little is ridiculous and not a solution. It is a problem.
We certainly need to do something, BUT not knowing and all of the uncertainty does place limits on what we should do.
We should be using smart methods of reducing CO2 like nuclear power and e-cars. These methods would not require 2% of GWP. LARGE (trillion dollar) expenditures are not warranted.
Edit:
You bring up the ability to feed ourselves, so lets talk about that.
The california drought that is supposedly CAUSED by AGW, but cannot in any way be traced to global warming saw about $1 Billion in direct crop loss.
The corn used to make ethanol in 2013 equated to around 4.9 Billion bushels, conservative costing around $4 a bushel for $19.6 billion in crops directed to fuel instead of food. Most of that nearly $20 Billion in 2013 was due to the ethanol mandate.
Legislation is having a FAR greater affect on the cost of food than anything that can currently even be wrongly attributed to AGW.
Sure we need to do something, but we cannot run around like chickens with their heads cut off pretending the world is coming to an end. Not only does it make you look stupid when the absurd predictions do not come true (like New York streets being flooded by ocean water) , but it also generally leads to stupid "solutions".
Gringo,
I like that WHOLE quote you made. Not only is it imposssible now, but the new methods that must be developed are entirely UNTESTED!!!! So we are clear, .... Under the best circumstance, you develop a model and it is really just a guess. The ability of your mdoel to accurately predict gives you certianty in the models NOT the length of the code.
Also, generally, the more variables placed into the models the less certainty you should have in the model.
Not only are you working with overparameterized models, but you are working with new methods that are untested. You faith in those models is misplaced.
And like it or not, this is coming from a PhD in Statistics. IFFF you can find one of those people writing those complex models that predict out 100 years and they would like to argue with me, I am more than willing to take them on. BECAUSE, unless they are telling you NO MORE than that this is their best guess, they are lying to you.
I think it's not unreasonable to at least make tentative plans for the worst-case scenario--it's generally better to assume that a problem will be worse than you think, and be pleasantly surprised, than to assume that it will be better than you think, and be *unpleasantly* surprised.
So, the more uncertain we are about how much warming there will be, the worse of a worst-case scenario we need to plan for.
It depends on what the range is. If you are thinking we don't know if warming is 5C or 7C, that is one thing.
If you are thinking we don't know if it is 2C or 4C that is another thing.
If you are thinking we don't know if it is 1C or 3C that is another thing.
If you are thinking we don't know if it is 0C or 2C that is another thing.
If you are thinking we don't know if it is -1C or 1C that is another thing.
Global warming science has been moving from the second to the third range. The best estimate of global warming that they left out of the latest report is about 1.6C, down from 3C in the previous report
No, we have a reasonable expectation that the future will be in some range. We should hedge our bets, and reduce CO2 output now, where it is easy.
no
no.
jello says, "
The IPCC states that "The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible."? So then, if the future climate cannot be predicted, what are we doing spending money trying to predict the future climate?"
So do we really need to know how much climate will warm to justify limiting that temperature rise?
"Wouldn't it be better to feed and/or vaccinate children? "
Is it possible to think about, and do, more than one thing at a time?
Is it possible for conservatives?
Is it possible for liberals?
Is it possible for AGW deniers?
