For most lukewarmists it is certain that humans (GHG emissions) are causing the global temperature to increase. But how much? About +0.5C since pre-industrial times.
Everybody also understands there's some natural variation, year-to-year noise which is 20x greater than the human caused warming signal. The trend over the past century is +1.0C / century. Or +0.2C / decade in the second half.
So lukewarmists believe humans are responsible for about half of the observed warming this century (0.5 out of 1.0), the other half is noise which will cancel out in the long run. That implies the projection for future warming is small.
The alarmist position is the opposite: believing that the noise was probably saving us from more warming, and that other mechanisms have acted to keep the observed warming down. In this view, humans are maybe responsible for over a 100% of the warming. This implies that the noise which has kept things manageable will eventually cancel out and we'll see a sharp increase in the rate of warming in the next two decades.
So yes, I think skeptics, lukewarmists, and alarmists are all interested in GMT through 2030 to get a better idea for how much warming we'll get this century.
>I think skeptics, lukewarmists, and alarmists are all interested in GMT through 2030 to get a better idea for how much warming we'll get this century.
So in term of the question I asked, you are saying that skeptics and lukewarmists would change their minds if GMT went up significantly more than their present views predict? And is this something they explicitly state, and all of them?
Also, I was directing my question to deniers and skeptics, so let me ask what is your position.
> you are saying that skeptics and lukewarmists would change their minds if GMT went up significantly more than their present views predict?
Yes, absolutely.
One thing which makes this seemingly completely empirical topic difficult though is the ~20x noise-to-signal ratio and the "red noise" inherent in the process. This means end points for the analysis make a huge difference. Both skeptics and alarmists will cherry-pick when they can, and will reflexively dismiss each others trend lines as cherry picked.
My view is the "two sides" act as the prosecution and defense in an adversarial courtroom. Neither should be expected to raise evidence or lines of reasoning which detract from their own agenda. And both will constantly try to get the other side's evidence thrown out, even if they know it would get the general public closer to the truth.
Thank you for your answer. However, I think that a large proportion of skeptics and deniers would still not be persuaded if GMT went up significantly. I say that because it seems the question is all tied in with political philosophy and often religion for most of them. You seem to be more epistemologically neutral.
Everybody also understands there's some natural variation, year-to-year noise which is 20x greater than the human caused warming signal. The trend over the past century is +1.0C / century. Or +0.2C / decade in the second half.
So lukewarmists believe humans are responsible for about half of the observed warming this century (0.5 out of 1.0), the other half is noise which will cancel out in the long run. That implies the projection for future warming is small.
The alarmist position is the opposite: believing that the noise was probably saving us from more warming, and that other mechanisms have acted to keep the observed warming down. In this view, humans are maybe responsible for over a 100% of the warming. This implies that the noise which has kept things manageable will eventually cancel out and we'll see a sharp increase in the rate of warming in the next two decades.
So yes, I think skeptics, lukewarmists, and alarmists are all interested in GMT through 2030 to get a better idea for how much warming we'll get this century.