Originally Posted by
73qanda
What I’m not sure of is how accurate the predictions of future global warming are
Scientists confirm the accuracy of temperature models by applying modelled results to historical temperature data, and this has
shown to be accurate.
There were already climate models made in the early 90’s (the first IPCC Report was actually in 1990). The observed measured temperature rise up til today that was predicted by these models
have been within the range of those projections.
A
study that looked at climate models since the 70’s and their results as well found the projections were accurate. In fact, a lot of projections were shown to be too conservative, and the actual recorded figures were worse than the mean prediction, at the upper end of the IPCC range.
So unlike Dexta in post #163
how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years"
or what you posted at #182
It will take decades to build a half descent (SIC) understanding of how our climate works
scientists are confident today they know how our climate works. Unlike what you just said (a rehashing of the old “the science isn’t settled argument), the over 50 links I’ve posted on this thread from credible scientific organisations (vs about a half dozen links from deniers from conservative lobby groups like the Heartland Institure and fundamentalist websites like “Life Site News”) have shown that science has a more than “half decent understanding” of what climate change is. It’s using the science and models that bodies like the IPCC, NASA, CSIRO etc make their policy statements and recommended actions. If they are confident in using them then you should be too.
You seem very hung up on the point that because scientists can’t measure and definitely observe climate and temperature with 100% accuracy at some point in the future and tell us what it is now then it is just a wild guess. It’s actually at quite a high confidence interval at the moment.
I’ve stated numerous times that basically every single credible scientific organisation on earth holds the view that “the fact is humans cause climate change”. None of those organisations state “the fact is humans are causing climate change now, but because we can’t measure what will happen with 100% certainty in the future and tell you now let’s just wait another few decades to see if it really will have quite negative effects”. Even rises at the lowest ranges of the models show that negative effects will occur with continual climate change.
I’ll restate what I posted previously.
Not a single person here would not start treatment for cancer if given a diagnosis by one doctor, let alone 97. There's no way a doctor can predict exactly what the cancer is going to do right, so why not wait until conclusive, observed evidence arises that the cancer is having disastrous effects on your body? Why not wait until the cancer has spread to your lungs and brain and you're coughing up blood and having blackouts, then we will have definite evidence and be 100% sure that the cancer is an issue.