Yes, unfortunately the climate is a very non-linear system, so there's always something to nag about.

I'm just satisfied with a rough, 1st order estimate: just add CO2 and some water vapor and see what happens. And that picture isn't pretty.

The rest... well that's for fantasy land. Vegetation feedback, ocean currents, etcetera... all very nice but hard to predict and model. There could also be tipping points for large changes in the future.

A freaky set of giant volcanic eruptions? New ice age, maybe even a snowball earth.

Activation of a cataclismic methane feedback? Might happen or not. It wouldn't be nice, but do we have to include such a thing into a model? It's already a pretty bleak picture.

Cloud formation... clouds formation is influenced by lots of things. Temperature, humidity, aerosols, jet stream...

Do we really have to wait 50 years for more accurate models? Or shall we just take action based on the 1st order estimate (call it gut feeling) that we have now and just stop nagging about the details...

I trust models just fine.  When they're accurate and able to predict the things they claim to predict.  A lot of these aren't, which calls into question their assumptions.  I'm not comfortable making huge sweeping policy changes based on assumptions that are wrong more often than not and that somehow get swept aside in the we-must-have-consensus-you're-all-deniers thing that we call "Scientific consensus".  

And as for:

Take your pathetic internet superiority and stick it up your ass.  

Did you come here just to preen and strut and try to feel better about yourself by pretending you're bringing fire to the neanderthals?  Because that's all you're doing in half of your posts.  "I'm smart and you disagree with me therefore you're dumb, unenlightened, and don't believe in evolution.  Change your opinions to match mine and join my fun enlightened club."  I'm promise you, you're not the smartest nor the most well credentialed person here.  Not even close.  Neither am I, but at least I don't pretend I am in my posts.  

At least Geo has tried to discuss back and forth with real points and has largely avoided this kind of shit.  Even Ekko has, though not as well as Geo.  But you!  You show up and have been spouting insults from the moment you got to the thread.  Your childish sense of superiority is somehow laughable and annoying at the same time.  

Yet again I'll ask the question no one seems to want to answer.  Let's assume you're all right.  AGW is the end of the world.  It's all fire and brimstone and penguins with no ice to call home from here on out (but scientists with plenty of ice to call home, or at least to surround their boat).  What do you propose we do about it?  How can we fix it?  What's the solution that actually saves the day and doesn't just give tons of money and tons of authority to a few cleptocrats at the UN (and their friends) while not actually solving anything. 

Because let's remember kids China is on its way to producing more CO2 than the next 3 or 4 or 5 countries on the list, combined.  It produces roughly as much, or maybe more by now, CO2 as the United States and the EU combined.  Russia was #4 on the list in 2012 and has probably moved up to #3 (unless you count the EU as one country, then it's 5 and 4).  And neither of those countries is going to get on board with giving up their massive investments in coal power in the coming years that they need to keep their countries growing so the Dogooder Brigade can save the polar bears.

Don't jump on me, but give him a pass because he slipped calling everyone in the thread who disagrees with him an idiot in by directing at someone he agrees with. 

Person 1: "Har har... will you look at all these idiots"

Person 2: "Yup, look at them all"

That's still "attacking other site members." He still called me and Daiwa and Siv and Brad and the others who have been vocal about disagreeing with AGW idiots, he just did it by proxy.  No one could possibly read his comment and not realize who it was directed at. 

Call it both ways please.  

I will refrain in the future.  

There are a lot of things that models cannot predict, but are they really relevant for the bigger picture?

The main theme here is the CO2 insulation with feedback from water vapor. This simple aspect of the models gives us a rise of about 1.5 to 3.0 degrees celcius for every doubling of CO2, starting at 300 ppm or so. At a quadrupling (1200 ppm) that would give a temperature rise of 6.0 to 12 degrees celcius. The range comes from the uncertainties regarding the feedback.

Which aspects of the models do you consider relevant? And how much difference will it make for the result of (for example) a quadrupling of CO2 if that aspect of the model is properly included ?

In earlier posts, for example the effect of cloud formation was mentioned. But nobody knows whether there will be more clouds, or fewer clouds if warming continues. So in such a case, you actually know little to nothing. What do you decide in that case ... wait 50 years until someone figures out how it really works ? It could well turn out that it makes no difference and that humanity has wasted 50 years doing nothing, waiting for a pleasant surprise that never came.

Please consider that, too.

Unless he's standing in front of a mirror, it's impossible to be facing something and be inclusive of it. Read the rest of his comment, because he clarifies exactly who he means and it's not inclusive in the slightest.  The comment he was responding to and his comment are both full of they this and they that.  

It's clearly not inclusive. 

Regardless, you win.  You're the mod.  I'll refrain from calling people on their snide insults in the future.  

I already stipulated that you're right. What do we do about it? 

Cause here's the thing, even if you're wrong as long as the solutions doesn't kill the patient, who cares.  Let's do it just because AGW might be real.  But if the treatment might kill the patient (in this case, the world economy) then maybe we should get more information.  We should be more certain.  

I'm not an expert on climate science (and all the different disciplines that make it up).  But I'm learned and have a technical background and make a living working with others figuring out the best ways to solve big complex problems in rapidly changing environments (not climate related, obviously). And I've seen enough doubt, Brad's example of CO2 lagging temperature, for example, or consistent failure of the models' predictions of doom to come true as another, to know that we don't have enough information yet to justify potentially killing the patient in order to try to save the patient, because the there is a good chance the disease isn't as bad as some think it is.  

As I said, only Jafo is determinative.

Good to be King.

I think it's fine for people to be critical of models and how accurate they are as long as they are motivated to then actually learn more about them and are not falling for the fallacy of "Scientists don't know everything, therefore they know nothing and I can safely ignore them" or "Climate models are not 100% accurate therefore they're useless". I see a lot of intellectual dishonesty, motivated reasoning and misunderstandings of the science in the way the evidence gets interpreted though (in the media generally). In Daiwa's Christopher Essex example - maybe he has some good points to make. Or maybe he has an axe to grind after falling out with former colleagues. The fact that he is embraced by groups like the Heartland Foundation and people like Harper though is a warning sign as neither are known for their scientific credibility in general. On the flip side, accusations of stifling any dissent and not publishing contrary evidence needs to be taken seriously too. I'd rather see people like Mr. Essex publish more and engage with other climate scientists more and generate debate at that level rather than see him do some echo chamber speaker's tour of Holiday Inns financed by certain think tanks.

It's a good thing scientists were right on the money with cholesterol... 

http://www.pittsburghquarterly.com/index.php/Innovation/the-cholesterol-conundrum.html

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/

Yes, instead let's believe "I sell diet books but have no credentials, medical or otherwise" Zoe Harcombe. The same Zoe Harcombe who says about fruits and vegetables "Of course, they are tasty, colourful additions to any meal. But in terms of  health and nutrition, fruit and veg have little to offer".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-1349960/5-day-fruit-vegetables-myth-claims-nutrition-expert.html

Sounds legit to me! 

Anyway - I'm not sure what your point is. Scientists (or doctors in this case now) are clearly not always right about everything. But there is currently no better way to understanding reality and the whole point is that science evolves and improves its practices over time and is self-critical enough within its own disciplines to do so. Things do get discarded as new evidence comes to light. We are still learning things. As far as cholesterol goes, I know the "Cholesterol Myth" is making the rounds and, as usual, it's more complicated than good/bad, right/wrong. For another topic though...

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would see Thorium reactors were discussed for several pages and most people, myself included, sung their praises.  I'm on board.  You could put a thorium reactor next to my house and I'd be fine with it.  It could give me the power that my solar panels won't cover.  In fact Thorium reactors are point number one in my argument (more in a moment).  

Unfortunately, you're not going to get the Chinese or the Russians to invest in converting their massive coal based power systems to Thorium.  At least not anytime soon and not at any huge rate of speed.  The EU and the US have already flattened on their carbon growth.  

As I've said many times throughout this thread, let's just not do anything crazy that could ruin the quality of life of people around the world (through recession, collapse or war) and could ruin the development of the very technologies that might allow us to stop any AGW that does exists.  Let technology solve this problem itself over the next century.  We're going to be on thorium and solar completely soon enough (or something better, if it comes along), so unless we can prove that the intervening few decades are what make or break us coming back from the supposed AGW cliff, why do anything drastic?  

It's going to happen anyway.  

And really:

Enough with this, huh?  Apparently you're fine, mod wise, if you just keep implying those who disagree with you are idiots, but it really makes talking to you tiresome. 

@Sel - so instead of the Rapture, we have AGW predictions, Thorium powered society predictions, and telepathic virtual world predictions! 50 years from now we'll have a bionically enhanced, cryogenically preserved, sanity deficient Jafo still tending this weed garden! The "I told you sos" might come sooner than that though...

No, this 'mod' is not 'fine'.

The generalized assertion that any side of a debate 'must be idiots' is ALSO not acceptable.

To demonstrate....the next person to suggest such shall be excluded from participation here.

Bottom line.  I don't care whose side of the fence you're hanging out on.  So far this thread has seen several people 'silenced' [time out] - something that tends to be more common in Political threads [hence their banning from this Forum category].

BTW....'sanity deficient JAFO'.  Are we tired of living or had you cottoned on to the idea I don't care about myself being 'insulted'?  Anyone else the target and tha door slaps you on the way out...