You have no idea what you are talking about. There is not just 'a single percentage point of doubt' when comes to the actual numbers themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't referring to the projections, I was referring to the general population of scientists. So...
Which means exactly nothing, Rule of logic: truth is not determined by the number of adherents to a claim.
The only thing that matters are what the models and data say.
"Preponderance of evidence" is a legal term, it has no meaning in science where countless times previously science has overturned cherished models and theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. It is preponderance of evidence that makes the hypothesis of gravity the Theory of Gravity. A true scientist will admit of the possibility that an apple will rise when it's severed from the tree. It just has never been observed and so is very improbable.
You are way in over your head. First we really don't have a "theory of gravity", we have Newton's laws and general relativity. Second any theory must explain all current relevant measurements and produce testable predictions. One error, just one glaring inconsistency, and out goes the theory DESPITE the preponderance of 'evidence'. This is not a court of law, nature does not give two shits about preponderance of evidence.
A true scientist remains open minded about everything with also a very healthy skeptism, especially about new dramatic climate claims and politically charged science behind it. A true scientist also understands the
vast difference between a well established and tested closed form mathematical theory like general relativity versus an ad hoc empirical modeling scheme like climate science. A true scientist knows that complete first principles ab initio climate models do not exist, and recognizes the large limitations of the current ad hoc empirical models. A true scientist would NEVER sell any of the current climate models of the very complex nonlinear dynamical system known as the atmosphere (which we know CANNOT be precisely modeled even in theory) as anything close to a well established physical theory like classical newtonian mechanics.... Yet, some do- the power of religion.
100 year climate predictions are about as accurate as 20 day weather forecasts, you would not know that listening to the news.
Your economics is also based on the discredited broken window theory. Plywood sales sure are hot just before a hurricane- doesn't make things good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a broken window Keynesian, though if money is available but not circulating, it is in fact probably better overall to "make work" than it is to have general unemployment (leaving out the finite capacity of Earth, for the moment), I'm a "new windows" or "better windows"-until-the-private-sector-gets-moving-again Keynesian, to put it in too brief a sentence.
Make work schemes are not 'better or new' windows, they are wastes of resources. The only thing that matters is if wealth or productivity goes up. If you are correct then let's just print up a bunch of money, shut down all fossil fuel activities and make everyone make and use solar energy.
With that, I just said I provisionally accept that we have warmed and may warm some more. Science DOES NOT say what to do about it, that's where the communists step in and tell us what to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank goodness we're at least on page two or three of the argument. It appears at least one guy around here is still on page one, ie. "is there really any warming?"
I am open minded about what carefully collected data says, the problem is that I can't even trust that anymore, and what I think I can trust is very noisy and incomplete. After climategate, people went to work trying to explain why the atmosphere apparently showed no warming in the last 10 years. As is typical in this field all sorts of ad hoc explainations came in. 'They are constantly surprised by unexpected phenomena. This alone tells you 'they' do no not 'have a grasp on reality at this point in time. I do know that the left is so heavily politically invested that it will be very difficult for open minded examinations.
So, what do we know? We know that CO2 has a greater heat capacity than oxygen.
LOL, I
almost feel empathy... you provide so many softballs for one to smack around...
sigh, check out
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html (the cp is the one you want)...get back with me when you know something about thermodynamics and for cripes sake stop saying 'we know'
... that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.
ok
So, we would anticipate atmospheric warming (all other things being equal, where the "anthropogenic" and "solar-genic?" argument begins) and yep, that's what we're observing. We also know, through isotope analysis, that Man is adding a significant and growing amount to total atmospheric CO2.
It is not a direct linear correlation at all, it isn't isotope analysis that is used, significant is not a useful term, and you can't tell by examing a molecule of CO2 where it came from.
Ok back to Stevie Ray Hawking and his overmedicated Venus statement. Earth's atmosphere has about 0.035 percent (not 3%, .03%) CO2 in it and the entire industrial revolution has increased it about 25% from its starting base in 1800 (I'm being charitable to the climate gang). Venus' atmosphere has 95% CO2 and has about 100 times more mass than earth. Also, ~500 million years ago it is theorized that the ocean's CO2 was released and that raised concentrations to about to about 20 times current levels (note how puny man's hypothesized contribution is compared to that). So there is Stevie's ocean trapped CO2. There is a big problem however, we didn't turn into Venus even at those levels. To turn into Venus we need approximately another 95x30x100 ~2.5million times more CO2. That means if we have another 10 million industrial revolutions and a release of Ocean CO2, and global vulcanism to get that sulfur, then we might be Venus (except that I didn't account for the fact we get only half the solar flux). Whew thank goodness for Al Gore