Earth just had its 400th straight warmer-than-average month thanks to global warming

It's like this. While we can't be sure that our exact median/mean estimate of the costs will definitely occur we can place a range on the estimate to increase our confidence. The bigger the range the bigger the confidence. As with most things in science that cannot be quantified with 100% certainty the most likely outcome is modeled by a Bell Curve. Or in layman's terms the "the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle". What I'm saying is that there is a near 0% chance that our mean/median estimate of the costs will turn out to be perfect. However, the real cost will likely be close to the mean/median with dwindling odds that the further from the consensus you get. Or in scientific terms if the cost is on the x-axis and probability is on the y-axis then the graph will look like a Bell Curve. It's important to note that the probability of underestimating is the same as overestimating. And the most important thing you must realize is that the probability of AGW having zero cost is close to 0% because that scenario is on the left hand side tail of the curve.

Anyway, I do agree that if the planet went into a cooling cycle naturally (like maybe with an overlap of hyperactive volcanism and a solar grand minimum) then some anthroprogenic warming force might be desirable. But, we can't predict extreme cooling events deterministically like that. All we can say is that an extreme natural cooling event is unlikely. That means our anthroprogenic warming force will likely lead to ever warmer conditions. And over the last 6 decades that has been the scenario that has played out. It's even played out under a regime of declining solar output.

 

Oh Horse ****.

Why don't you admit that you can't answer the question without destroying your point. You have been hung on the horns of your own claims, don't be a baby about it, these are growth opportunities.

 

There's clearly a breakdown in communication here. How about this...define "proper" for us. Are you thinking it's the temperature that yields the most biomass? Or perhaps the temperature that maximizes Earth's carrying capacity for humans, alligators, polar bears, or some other species? Or maybe it's the temperature that minimizes the per capita expenditure for the current population level? Or maybe it's the temperature that maximizes world GDP? Or is it something else?

The point...there's no "proper" temperature that benefits Earth. There's not even a "proper" temperature that benefits humans because "proper" could be different depending on which variable of humanity you want to maximize. But, in the broadest and most general sense the best scenario for humans is for a constant temperature. That allows us to maximize our adaptation for the minimum cost. If the temperature is always changing then it forces us to try and adapt to a moving target.

 

No, we are communicating fine. Those that would argue that the earth's temperature is improper would necessarily carry the burden of describing the "proper" temperature of earth.

Even if that temperature resulted in a glacial advance? During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now. This was due to reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere. The massive sheets of ice locked away water, lowering the sea level, exposing continental shelves, joining land masses together, and creating extensive coastal plains. During the last glacial maximum, 21,000 years ago, the sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today and Chicago was under a mile of ice.

Uhh, that's horse ****. Those conditions will result in die offs when they return, they always do. Your life relies on the constant feeding on other lifeforms.

Life thrives on earth in the presence of warmth, water and carbon dioxide. In the presence of adequate warmth and water, earth converts carbon dioxide into living organisms. The more abundantly warmth, water and CO^2 are available the more rapidly CO^2 is converted into life.

How much do you have to adapt to survive in Hawaii?

During warm earth conditions, the tropical bands widen as do each of the successive bands, with Seattle like rainforests all the way to the poles. These aren't guesses or computer models, these are the certain facts as told by the fossil record.

The difference between Warm Earth Conditions and our current Ice Age conditions are the variance in temperature, during ice ages the poles are much cooler, during Warm Earth conditions, the oceans circulate the warm with much more uniform warmth all over the world.

We will not see Warm Earth conditions with the current continental configuration. With the joining of North and South America, there is a solid wall from the Bering Strait to the Strait of Magellan and the poles are largely isolated from tropical warmth.

But, with decent luck our current interglacial should hold for several thousand more years, followed by a glacial advance, that will greatly reduce the amount of life Earth can carry, until the warmth returns. It was about a 100,000 years of glacial advance between our current interglacial and the previous one. The Ancients taught that the Farting buffalo drove away the ice as the sun returned to smile on The People.