Yes, but I asked if we could know anything after 20 years I mean we have all heard repeated arguments that the sun is the driver of climate We all know that solar activity is responsible for climatic changes And now we know that the sun has entered a less active phase And that will result in climate cooling. And that there is a lag of 10-15 years Ok Check But if we agree to all the above... will we EVER know anything? Will looking at the climate after 20 yearstell us anything Is there any falsifiable prediction that sceptics have, or will ever make? Or is the baseline position that we know nothing and can never know anything About climate except that man had no impact?
I think we know a lot but there is also a lot we know we don't know and things we are not yet aware of yet. Even if it cools in 10 years it will still be possible we won't really know the actual mechanism other than the main contributor, the sun. For instance it is another hypothesis that lower solar activity allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere causing more clouds. Since none of this is reproducible as a check it is all unfalsifiable.
We have to build giant solar powered magnets at the poles and pull them back into place, or at least as a substitute the ones that are moving. If I recall correctly from science class, all we need are some copper wires, a power source and a couple really big nails.
If you've had you truck for a long time, your carbon footprint can easily be smaller than that of the guy who buys a new Prius every other year.
But I asked about what we know if it keeps warming in the face of a less active sun? Ok... If I understand you correctly Your view is that given the inevitable reproducibility problem We can never be certainly n on the issue And therefore Even if the warmist are right in every respect. (just a thought experiment) Your position is that no evidence could ever be presented that would validate doing anything Correct?
I think you are correct in the abstract. Since none of this can be reproduced, only time will tell and even then it could be misunderstood and/or misrepresented. The fact that we really have very little in actual direct measured science over time leaves plenty of room for valid skepticism of the current popular hypothesis. That and one of the foundations of this hypothesis remains wanting and that is it is supposed to show warming in the troposphere first. Instead only the surface records show warming above any rate in the troposphere. Many believe that is due to bias in the surface record.
But that is my point... time will not tell Because there will never be absolute proof But, there is reproducibility in knowing that gh gasses have certain physical characteristics And those would tend to add heat to the system absent other impacts Impacts that remain unquantifiable Gh gas is well measured And, actually I agree that there is room for skepticism But, and it is a very big but It is equally reasonable to be skeptical of the so called skeptics position These are also (at best) unprovable So, we are left not knowing for sure We do not know if there is a human caused problem We do not know if we can do anything about warming what ever the cause And, if there is a problem, we are not certain of the the size of the impact But we DO KNOW that very many smart people think there IS A HUMAN CAUSED PROBLEM AND so there is an unquantifiable risk And in most circumstances An organization faced with such a risk would devote some resources to mitigating the risk As In the Y2K issue In that case we all knew there might not be a problem But spent resources to mitigate risk... just in case We could discuss such technical issue forever and not make progress But imo there are two incontestable facts Gh gas concentrations are rising And gh gasses have well tested physical characteristics That taken in isolation would increase temperatures For example Lets say we changed the atmosphere to 25% co2 Would we expect temp to increase?
The only thing really 'known' about AGW are first principles like we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that by itself can absorb and reflect energy. We know that greenhouse gases are necessary to keep the planet habitable, at least for us. We know the Earth has warmed since 1890 in waves. We know we create CO2. Beyond that it is all hypothesis, how much sensitivity there is in the atmosphere to CO2. Is the CO2 hypothesis that water vapor actually multiplies the effect true since the hypothesis relies on this. Are there other pathways for energy to escape that we have not taken into account (some say there are). How does it all work in a chaotic non-linear system. How much uptake there really is, still unknown. Is rising CO2 also a response to a warmed planet. If we burned all available fossil fuel on the planet the % of CO2 in the atmosphere would never reach 25% but only increase the meager amount now by a small percentage. BTW, we are putting back into the atmosphere that was taken out by living organisms that thrive on CO2. Most of today's plant life came into existence when CO2 was much higher than today by as much as 10 times. Since we are in a 2.5 million year ice age interspersed with short mild periods like the one we are in now, CO2 has dropped to bare existence levels. 280 PPM is about as low as you can go without harming life. One thing is certain, without knowing how much CO2 is natural, one cannot know how much is man-made. All the figures you see are estimates, not measurements.
I am not sure how you use the phrase sensitivity in the atmosphere... unless that means the combined effect of all inputs and dynamics... but we have long ago agree Yes, there are innumerable possibilities Which brings it back the fundamental uncertainty But, at least there are some fundamental and KNOWN REASONS to consider that gh gas would cause warming....all other things being equal. And this is my point. Yeah, There is much uncertainty so little is sure. But there are solid reasons that agw is a non zero possibility... presumably you agree there is no absolute proof it is not possible And if agw is possible, it is a risk that should be mitigated That was simply a hypothetical question to determine if we agree that co2 would affect temps at some concentration. All true, but not relevant to discussing agw today 280 ppm was the near term stasis point before the Industrial Age... life was fine In any case, we are not going back there And the question before us is what happens to TEMPS TODAY when we inNCREASE GH GASS concentrations Seems like we have a very good idea how much is man made Concentrations have risen from 280 to 400 in a short period of time And no scientist has proposed any alternative reason for the increase Likewise, we can quantify the carbon we dump into the system
Of course other scientists have proposed that at least part of the increase is due to warming temperatures. We can only estimate how much we put out.
Do you have a link on this I am aware of the methane issue, but that is not co2 Btw, co2 is also dissolving in the ocean causing increased acidity
Again that is projection based on an hypothesis and models. What they claim the increase is in the oceans is well within the uncertainty range which means it could be zero increase. Acidity values change more than that in a single month.