Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic
OH dear…please tell all of these scientists what they are doing is completely wrong…you can’t apply a probability distribution to climate variables and resulting outcomes…its just wrong, dissident says so!
SEMENOV, M.A. & BARROW, E.M., 1997. Use of a Stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35: 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005342632279
Wilks, D.S. , 1992. Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies, Climatic Change 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143344
Sigourous, et al, 2018. Statistical and stochastic comparison of climate change vs urbanization. 20th EGU General Assembly, Proceedings. P 18608
Caccamo, M. T and Magazu, S, 2019. A physical-mathematical approach to climate change effects through stochastic resonance. Climate, 7(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7020021
Proistosescu, C et al, 2018. Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variablility in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geoph Res Lett,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678
Hagos, S et al, 2018. A stochastic framework for modeling the population dynamics of convective clouds. Journal of Advance in Modeling Earth Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001214
Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. "
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined
Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.
In case you don’t understand what the graph is telling you there is a range of ECS anywhere from 6 degrees down to just above 1.5 degrees based on peer-reviewed papers. For a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm that is a difference in ~5 degrees, all the way from nothing to see here to oh, that’s quite nasty. That is the definition of an uncertain projection.
We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Do I have to remind you that correlation does not mean causation? Do I have to repost anyone of hundreds of graphs showing spurious correlations such as the number of movies Nicolas Cage starred in versus the number of deaths by drowning in swimming pools?
The only serious uncertainties lie in how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought
Jesus wept. Do a bit of reading on the subject
Curry, J, and Webster 2011, , Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster, AMS, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-10-3139.1