Humans have less impact on climate?

[Mike B.]

Here is a link to an article in the "Telegraph:"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KLUUXEUVDSXJNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

"The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels."

and yet:

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said."

?????????????

[a_unique_person]

Julian Morris has nothing to do with the IPCC, whatever he says is his own opinion, and nothing to do with peer reviewed science.

The Telegraph story is confusing. It appears to be saying that because there are man made aerosols in the atmosphere, which cool the earth, the effects of CO2 will be reduced. Which is not saying the science of CO2 warming is wrong, but is saying mankind is creating two effects at once, one which warms the earth, and one that cools it. The aerosols are a short lived phenomenon, while C02 is long lived.

[Rob Lister]

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said."

?????????????

Julian is a wise man, yet he was being kind -- he didn't say "will have Negligible impact", which is closer to the truth.

[a_unique_person]

Julian is a wise man, yet he was being kind -- he didn't say "will have Negligible impact", which is closer to the truth.

And you know this how?

[Meadmaker]

I mentioned this in another thread, but this one is fresher, so I'll say it here, too.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time last night. One thing that leaped out at me was the segment talking about the concensus among peer reviewed science journals. No one has published an article in a peer reviewed science journal questioning the scientific position that global warming is real, and humans are causing it.

Sure, Julian Morris, representing something called a "Policy Institute" isn't convinced. So? If someone writing in some sort of journal of meteorology had something to say about it, I would say that Al Gore, another politician, wasn't very credible. As it is, it seems that one side has politicians and scientists in their court. The other side has politicians, but no scientists.

Is that right, or is Al Gore telling stretchers again?

[gumboot]

I mentioned this in another thread, but this one is fresher, so I'll say it here, too.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time last night. One thing that leaped out at me was the segment talking about the concensus among peer reviewed science journals. No one has published an article in a peer reviewed science journal questioning the scientific position that global warming is real, and humans are causing it.

Sure, Julian Morris, representing something called a "Policy Institute" isn't convinced. So? If someone writing in some sort of journal of meteorology had something to say about it, I would say that Al Gore, another politician, wasn't very credible. As it is, it seems that one side has politicians and scientists in their court. The other side has politicians, but no scientists.

Is that right, or is Al Gore telling stretchers again?



Seems to me scientist can't even agree over whether they agree or not. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me.

This sort of myth-making bias doesn't help anyone. I know so many people who think it's a 100% verified fully accepted scientific fact (on the level of "Gravity" or such things) that climate change is occuring, that it is unnatural, and that humans are the cause.

Now, I'm not intending to argue the validity of those claims, but I have seen disagreement on all three of these points from different highly qualified scientists who are experts in this field.

So clearly there is NOT a consensus.

-Gumboot

[a_unique_person]

Seems to me scientist can't even agree over whether they agree or not. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me.



Which scientists? What evidence? What papers?



This sort of myth-making bias doesn't help anyone.



In what sense is this myth making?



I know so many people who think it's a 100% verified fully accepted scientific fact (on the level of "Gravity" or such things) that climate change is occuring, that it is unnatural, and that humans are the cause.

Now, I'm not intending to argue the validity of those claims, but I have seen disagreement on all three of these points from different highly qualified scientists who are experts in this field.

Evidence?


So clearly there is NOT a consensus.

-Gumboot You need to present evidence to support that claim.

[gumboot]

Which scientists? What evidence? What papers?


Don't ask me. You're the one bringing up "evidence" and "papers".

As for scientists... I was speaking of the collective group "scientists". So... those scientists.



In what sense is this myth making?

If one side promotes an argument that there is consensus, when there isn't, they are myth making. C'mon, at least try. This is all very straight forward.




Evidence?

You need to present evidence to support that claim.

Are you telling me you've never come across a qualified scientist that doesn't agree with the alleged "consensus view" on climate change?

Here's Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)

-Gumboot

[skeptifem]

I think its accurate to say that the statement that there is a consensus is controversial by itself. I was snooping around and found some surveys, few that had more than 100 participants in it. Its hard to say, and I dont see how it matters anyway, how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?

[gumboot]

how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?


From my own anecdotal evidence your average person will often respond to a claim that "all the experts agree" with "oh well it must be true then".

Now, this problem is two-fold.

1) If the claim is incorrect, ignorant people are believing things that are false based, not on expert opinion, but a false claim about expert opinion (i.e. that it is in consensus).

2) If the claim is correct, more skeptical people who examine arguments before committing to a point of view may reject the hypothesis based on the deceptive and unscientific nature of the argument used by the person approaching them (that all the experts agree).

-Gumboot

[gtc]

Are you telling me you've never come across a qualified scientist that doesn't agree with the alleged "consensus view" on climate change?

Quite possibly. The Age and the ABC don't tolerate any dissent from the consensus view.

The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt ran a story (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20400748-25717,00.html)about the lack of consensus and was subject to the full force of the ABC's fury (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm). Here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_green_with_anger_over_my_expose_of_al_ gores_hype/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_im_on_the_griller/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_bias_is_only_half_its_problem/) for more background.

The Sydney Morning Herald's cover story today asks whether bush was unnecesarily sacrificed firefighters focussed on protecting people and property.

Even as a regular reader of the Sydney Morning Herald, I find the Age to be quite stunningly partisan in its editorials (http://www.theage.com.au/editorial/index.html)and particularly in its cartoons (http://www.theage.com.au/cartoons/index.html) and its columnists (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/exclusivity-has-no-place-in-schools/2006/12/09/1165081194544.html) (note the assertion that American soldiers were caught on film peeing on the Koran - Terry Lane has form for incompetence).

[a_unique_person]

I think its accurate to say that the statement that there is a consensus is controversial by itself. I was snooping around and found some surveys, few that had more than 100 participants in it. Its hard to say, and I dont see how it matters anyway, how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?

It's not a majority, its the preponderance of evidence collected scientifically.

[a_unique_person]

Quite possibly. The Age and the ABC don't tolerate any dissent from the consensus view.




Scientific view, you mean.


The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt ran a story (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20400748-25717,00.html)about the lack of consensus and was subject to the full force of the ABC's fury (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm). Here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_green_with_anger_over_my_expose_of_al_ gores_hype/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_im_on_the_griller/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_bias_is_only_half_its_problem/) for more background.



Because he is an uniformed opinion writer.

[Soapy Sam]

For about 90% of the last 200million years, there probably were much reduced, or nonexistent ice caps at either pole.

For much of the last 2 million years, the planet has been colder than at any time in the preceding half billion.

For most of the last 55 million years, the overall trend of average planetary temperature has been downward.

Since about 20,000 BP, the trend has been upward, except for a major reversal between 12 and 10,000 BP when we had glaciers all over the place again.

Since then, it's been getting warmer, except for a period from about 1300 to the mid 19th century, when it went down again.

Choose one.

[a_unique_person]

And for the past few ten thousands of years, the climate has been incredibly stable and civilisation has flourished.

They can also measure the rate of change. The current increase is faster than normal geological rates of change.

[Soapy Sam]

AUP- Yes indeed, civilisation is an artifact of stable conditions. While humans thrived in the last ice age and emerged from it in a strong position, we could not support present populations through another one- and may be unable to do so through a period as warm as the Cenozoic optimum
The question is one of time scale.
The geological data cannot distinguish rapid changes on the same scale as day to day records. We are comparing apples with aardvaarks.That does not prove rapid change did not happen. Interestingly, when we start to get short term records from ice cores, the evidence suggests that extremely fast change is the norm rather than the exception.

Not that any of this alters the point that human society needs to be prepared for sharp change. The data do not unequivocally support the idea that humans are causing global warming- but that is a political argument of limited importance.
The important thing is to heed the warnings and prepare to cope.

Not needlessly polluting or squandering energy makes sense in any case.

[sphenisc]

For about 90% of the last 200million years, there probably were much reduced, or nonexistent ice caps at either pole.

For much of the last 2 million years, the planet has been colder than at any time in the preceding half billion.

For most of the last 55 million years, the overall trend of average planetary temperature has been downward.

Since about 20,000 BP, the trend has been upward, except for a major reversal between 12 and 10,000 BP when we had glaciers all over the place again.

Since then, it's been getting warmer, except for a period from about 1300 to the mid 19th century, when it went down again.

Choose one.

Why choose one? The options don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Soapy Sam]

They are exclusive or not , depending on the time scale we look at.
At any instant, temperature is going up or down. But what value is an instant if we are talking about the next century?

My point is just that while there is evidence that global warming is happening on the sort of timescale we might be interested in politically- 20-100 years, I have still seen no unequivocal proof that it is being caused by human activity.
(As opposed to being part of a natural cycle).
Nor do we have a reliable prediction for the 100-1000 year scale. It would be ironic indeed if we attempted intervention now which resulted in another Younger Dryas by the 24th century.

[a_unique_person]

In the United States, scientists as eminent as Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have denounced Gore's film as "shrill alarmism" or simply wrong in critical parts.

Lindzen. OK. That's it? That's the extent names of experts in the field.?

Dr Benny Peiser? He has no expertise in the field. If you go through the list of papers that deny global warming, they do no such thing, it's just Peiser demonstrating his ignorance.

We then have Bolt, as usual, giving us his own interpretation of what a scientist says, with no references or indication of where we can look the reference.

He takes on the bungled logic of past times when temperature rises occured before increases in CO2.



University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

What he doesn't mention is that there were reasons for this to happen. Just as there is a reason for the current climate change, so there were complex mechanisms for past climate behaviour. It would take several paragraphs to detail the reasons, but for Bolt to make such a bald, simple assertion is just sheer ignorance. A false dichotomy. The history of changes in climate and interactions are much more complex than he makes them out to be.



And that worrying picture Gore shows of vanishing glaciers in the Himalayas? Newcastle University researchers last month said some glaciers there are now getting bigger again.

Cherry picking at it's finest.



IPCC predictions are what I would go with.

However as the head of the CSIRO climate change team says

[quote]
Director of the CSIRO Climate Program, Bryson Bates, who is also a former Hunter Valley resident said whether farmers believed in climate change or not was not the point any more.
"YOU don't have to believe in climate change but you should manage the risk. Doing nothing is not longer an option."
Mr Bates said in every climate statistic that he has looked at there are noticeable changes.
"The evidence is compelling, recently observed changes are faster than expected," he warned.
Chair of the Department of Primary Industries run-forum was Arthur Burns from the Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
He said the forum was a chance to learn and it certainly was not a political forum.
Gary Alan from the NSW DPI, who is directing a Climate Risk Management project, said the day was also an information gathering exercise for him.
Mr Alan said long after the 10 forums being held around the state are finished that DPI staff will continue to keep in contact with everyone who attends.
"The DPI will also use its extension network that includes the Rural Land Protection Board to provide ongoing support for people in the Hunter," he said.
"Adaptation to the impact of further inevitable climate change will be necessary," Mr Alan said.
Current climate predictions indicate NSW will face greater extremes and variations in rainfall and temperature, which may affect the operation of many agricultural enterprises.
This was certainly reflected in the speeches of local industry representatives such as dairy farmer Simon Downes from 'Haddington,' Denman.
"As far as the dairy industry is concerned water is our main issue and we won't have any in a few weeks time."
John Sylvester from ‘Isis Hills' Timor, Murrurundi agreed the drought was the major issue but insisted people should not forget about water once the drought breaks.
"Everything is rush, rush now to build new dams until the drought breaks. We cannot let the politicians forget about it after that," he said.
Mr Bates forced a similar point when he said people were making the mistake of thinking the drought would not end but he believes it will.
He said there was a high level of uncertainty attached to the current climate change debate.
"We are not trying to predict or forecast what is happening in decades ahead only look at scenario analysis."
"Twenty-three such model scenarios exist throughout the world at the moment."
Mr Bates mentioned Al Gore's film ‘An inconvenient truth' as a particularly important one to watch.



That is, these are the possibilities, the IPCC predictions are conservative, and changes appear to be happening faster than predicted. Gores scenario could be correct.

Hurricanes for the US were less than expected, due to the sudden appearance of an El Nino, (which is what is giving Australia the current severe drought) and some other factors. However, the Phillipines is currently getting hammered by typhoons, with only a break of two weeks between the last two, at this late stage of the year.

Predictions for cooling? I'd like to know why. Gray is once again an outlier,



Gray’s view has been challenged, however.
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.
“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”




http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894







I'm sorry to raise these inconvenient truths just when so many of our scientists seem to prefer the certainties of faith over the uncertainties of evidence.







***** Andrew. "truths" they are not, just your twisting of facts, cherry picking, say so, ignorance.



Where there are some points of difference, you may possibly be correct in two points out of ten that are wrong.

[sphenisc]

They are exclusive or not , depending on the time scale we look at.


As the time scales are given in your statements, I don't understand your first point. All the time scales given are different and no set of them is mutually incompatible.


At any instant, temperature is going up or down. But what value is an instant if we are talking about the next century?


An instant isn't very useful, but none of the statements refer to an instant.



My point is just that while there is evidence that global warming is happening on the sort of timescale we might be interested in politically- 20-100 years, I have still seen no unequivocal proof that it is being caused by human activity.
(As opposed to being part of a natural cycle).


Why do you consider the cause an important point, rather than its solvability?


Nor do we have a reliable prediction for the 100-1000 year scale. It would be ironic indeed if we attempted intervention now which resulted in another Younger Dryas by the 24th century.

Not as ironic as destroying a large chunk of the human race while delaying another ice-age.

[a_unique_person]

They are exclusive or not , depending on the time scale we look at.
At any instant, temperature is going up or down. But what value is an instant if we are talking about the next century?

My point is just that while there is evidence that global warming is happening on the sort of timescale we might be interested in politically- 20-100 years, I have still seen no unequivocal proof that it is being caused by human activity.
(As opposed to being part of a natural cycle).
Nor do we have a reliable prediction for the 100-1000 year scale. It would be ironic indeed if we attempted intervention now which resulted in another Younger Dryas by the 24th century.

The rate is important. The changes due to the end of the last ice age. The temperature rose by 5C in 10,000 to 20,000 years, we are talking about such a change happening to the earth now in 200 or so years. The difference in the order of magnitude is huge.

Asking for unequivocal proof reminds me of creationists denying the evidence for evolution. Sure, there are gaps, but so much evidence is there, does it really matter?

[a_unique_person]

Don't ask me. You're the one bringing up "evidence" and "papers".

As for scientists... I was speaking of the collective group "scientists". So... those scientists.




If one side promotes an argument that there is consensus, when there isn't, they are myth making. C'mon, at least try. This is all very straight forward.



First of all prove you claim, before making the logical conclusion.




Are you telling me you've never come across a qualified scientist that doesn't agree with the alleged "consensus view" on climate change?

Here's Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us)

-Gumboot


If you want to see some links to science behind AGW, courtesy of varwoche http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1976047#post1976047 .

From your link



The Earth is not warming

Since 2001, no climate scientists have expressed skepticism that warming, of the magnitude described by the IPCC, has occurred.



So for a start, there is not just consensus, it is unanimous, the climate has been warming.

The list of scientists is quite small, displayed on that link. Follow the links provided by Varwoche, you will see the work of hundreds of scientists researching the area.

[Meadmaker]

The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt ran a story (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20400748-25717,00.html)about the lack of consensus and was subject to the full force of the ABC's fury (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm). Here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_green_with_anger_over_my_expose_of_al_ gores_hype/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_im_on_the_griller/) and here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_bias_is_only_half_its_problem/) for more background.


I read the story, and looked up some of the cited authors.

I only spent half an hour or so. It's hardly an exhaustive search. However, what I found did not contradict Gore's claims regarding scientific research.

Gore's movie has been described, appropriately, as "alarmist". It seems that there is no consensus that the degree of alarm is justified. There is considerable doubt about the extent of global warming caused by humans, and about the consequences of that warming. I'll keep looking as time allows, but on the basic question of whether or not human induced global warming is occurring, nothing I saw from the sources cited in the article makes me question that there is a consensus about the basic science.

There's lots of debate about appropriate policy to pursue, but on the basic question of whether the phenomenon is real, there seems to be none.

[skeptifem]

It's not a majority, its the preponderance of evidence collected scientifically.



so you're saying its the majority of the evidence being in favor of AGW that makes it a consensus? that doesnt challenge what i have said.


also- about the experts disagreeing- I know that people have posted petitions from people skeptical of AGW in threads you have started about it, some of the people signing them worked on ipcc. there is a link in the wiki someone posted earlier, under 'global warming controversy'.

[DeviousB]

The two fields where most effort seems to be focused at the moment are attribution and sensitivity.

Attribution is the question of how much of the observed warming is caused by natural and anthropogenic changes to climate forcings. Despite a (healthy) variety of opinions on attribution, the published science is either neutral on attribution, or supportive of a significant anthropogenic contribution.

Sensitivity is the question of how large an effect on the world's climate both the observed and predicted changes will have. The scientific consensus, i.e. the consensus of the science, is that we might expect between a 1.5 and 4.5 Celsius rise in GMST in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

[DeviousB]

also- about the experts disagreeing- I know that people have posted petitions from people skeptical of AGW in threads you have started about it, some of the people signing them worked on ipcc.

Experts can disagree all they want (and do). If they can't produce the science to back up their objections it is just an opinion.

[Soapy Sam]

The rate is important. The changes due to the end of the last ice age. The temperature rose by 5C in 10,000 to 20,000 years, we are talking about such a change happening to the earth now in 200 or so years. The difference in the order of magnitude is huge.

Asking for unequivocal proof reminds me of creationists denying the evidence for evolution. Sure, there are gaps, but so much evidence is there, does it really matter?

IMO, yes, the evidence does matter. As does the rate. If the Greenland ice shelf melts next year, a large volume of water at 0 Celsius will enter the North Atlantic. The effect on northern hemisphere weather , ice pack formation, current direction , deep water circulation and albedo would be dramatic. But in which direction? If the same melt takes 100 years would the effect be different? I think it would.

Note the comments on timings on this graph- here-http://www.fettes.com/Cairngorms/Loch%20Lomond%20Stadial.htm

It's evident that the change from glacial to comparitively mild conditions can occur on the order of a human lifetime. I doubt that we can pin any of the several Late Devensian fluctuations on human activity. Perfectly natural temperature variation can be as large as any we are seeing today. (We should also keep in mind that temperature is not the only important variable. Relative lengths of seasons and many other factors affect global average climate).

Yes, AUP, my opinion is that it really does matter whether we have all the facts or not. The evidence which accumulates annually shows that glacial / interglacial transitions are a great deal faster and more complex than we thought.

I repeat that this is no reason for energy profligacy or scientific complacency. But I do not share your confidence that we have the data yet.

Sphenisc-
The Ice ages may have been a freakishly improbable event, from which we are returning to a long term norm. The reason the dinosaurs did so well through the Mesozoic and insects so well in the Carboniferous may also have been climatic stability- but it was not the climate we are used to.
H.sap is an Ice Age mammal, but one which has thrived as the world has warmed after the ice. If it warms more, I suspect we will continue to thrive,long term, by adapting. Or we will not. Adapting on the basis of the wrong theory could be just as unfortunate as doing nothing. Or not. Damned hard to tell. I'm just not so wholly convinced as some that we know enough.

I'm interested in the causes of climate change. If terraforming or planetary engineering is starting here and now, I think it best that we know what we are about, but I confess I don't think of climate change in terms of "solvability", I see it as an opportunity for adaptation. But if you prefer to hold change back, you need to know why it happens.

Climate change will continue to affect all life on Earth, as it always has. For some, increased temperature will be advantageous, for some not. By "solvable" do you mean preservation of the status quo, with prairie wheatlands dominating global grain supply, or had you something else in mind? I mean - is it the climate you want to save, or the politics and culture derived from it? (The two are not the same, though intimately related).

I'm afraid I have to bow out of the discussion,people. I have bags to pack, flights to catch and a well to drill. I hope to check in after a few days.

SS.

[Meadmaker]

To answer SS, I don't really want an opportunity to adapt. If forced to adapt, that's ok. I guess we will. However, I don't see any need to force adaptation here. The climate status quo works. Let's not fix it.

In my search, I've seen a lot of discussion of how climate change might actually be good for us. I'm sure that's true, but I don't see any need to take the chance if we don't have to.

[DeviousB]

I doubt that we can pin any of the several Late Devensian fluctuations on human activity.

That won't stop someone trying! (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0960-7447(199203)2%3A2%3C33%3AATEOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z)
;)

[CapelDodger]

Since about 20,000 BP, the trend has been upward, except for a major reversal between 12 and 10,000 BP when we had glaciers all over the place again.
20ky BP the world was at a glacial maximum. Since then it's moved into an interglacial, just as it has before, due to regular cycles in Earth's orbit and inclinitation to the Sun. These cycles have nothing to do with the rapid warming that's going on now. The normal pattern for an interglacial is to start warm and gradually cool.

Since then, it's been getting warmer, except for a period from about 1300 to the mid 19th century, when it went down again.
From 10ky BP until 1900 the world gradually cooled. Which is to say, it didn't get warmer, you've been misinformed about that. (There's a lot of misinformation out there, not all of it deliberate.) Since 1900 warming has driven the temperature higher than it's ever been in this interglacial (except possibly during the period between the end of major glaciation and the Younger Dryas (12 to 11ky BP). To characterise 99 centuries of cooling followed by one century of warming as a "warming period" is nonsensical.

Interglacials are typically begin warm and gradually cool until a new glaciation kicks in. This interglacial was following that typical path until the last century. It's path now is not typical at all.

[a_unique_person]

so you're saying its the majority of the evidence being in favor of AGW that makes it a consensus? that doesnt challenge what i have said.



A consensus you are talk about is a matter of opinion. This is not just a matter of opinion, it is the result of scientific research. Read the links that Varwoche has collected on actual scientific research, by hundreds of scientists.



also- about the experts disagreeing- I know that people have posted petitions from people skeptical of AGW in threads you have started about it, some of the people signing them worked on ipcc. there is a link in the wiki someone posted earlier, under 'global warming controversy'.


There are about 20 scientists who question anthropogenic global warming, there are hundreds who don't. It's like the old scientific debates about the dangers of smoking and creationists. I can find you scientists who believe in creationism, and the tobacco companies could always find scientists who didn't believe smoking caused any harm.

[Schneibster]

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said."I guess I'm unclear on whether he means, "We shouldn't be spending billions of pounds (dollars, for the US members) on policy measures," or "We shouldn't enact policy measures without investigating how effective they will be." I'd tend toward the second view, absent any other information; IOW, let's not just go running off to "do something" if the "something" won't make a difference; let's pick some "somethings" that will make a difference. OTOH, if he means the first, then I would have to disagree with that assessment, merely on the grounds that if we don't do something, it's going to be really, really expensive.

[skeptifem]

A consensus you are talk about is a matter of opinion. This is not just a matter of opinion, it is the result of scientific research. Read the links that Varwoche has collected on actual scientific research, by hundreds of scientists.

I was asking why it matters if it is a consensus, i asked if a majority somehow made it correct. you said the preponderance of the data is what matters (which boils down to majority again, just not in people but in research). I am not getting anywhere in this discussion by having you restate your opinion. So lets just forget it. a consensus points to truth in your opinion, but not mine. perhaps that should be a whole different thread all together.



There are about 20 scientists who question anthropogenic global warming, there are hundreds who don't. It's like the old scientific debates about the dangers of smoking and creationists. I can find you scientists who believe in creationism, and the tobacco companies could always find scientists who didn't believe smoking caused any harm.

evidence of there being about 20 scientists who question?

To me both sides have good points. I do not see why it has to be so black and white. Perhaps both are somewhat right. It seems like the science behind global climate is not very old or very well understood, so I am going to wait awhile to make a judgement. Alternative fuel sources are a good idea in many practical ways so I am all for pursuing that.

[Iamme]

Here is a link to an article in the "Telegraph:"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KLUUXEUVDSXJNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

"The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels."



It seems to me that due to population increases and the fact more countries are becoming more heavily industrialized, that the amounts of emissions should be going up EXPONENTIALLY by decade.

[a_unique_person]

I was asking why it matters if it is a consensus, i asked if a majority somehow made it correct. you said the preponderance of the data is what matters (which boils down to majority again, just not in people but in research). I am not getting anywhere in this discussion by having you restate your opinion. So lets just forget it. a consensus points to truth in your opinion, but not mine. perhaps that should be a whole different thread all together.



You miss the point. This is not just opinion. It is scientific research, following the tried and proven scientific method. That means it is, as much as is humanely possible, not opinion, but objective fact. No one in the list of AGW deniers denies the world is warming, for example, that is demonstrated beyond doubt. The deniers are only denying there is a human component to it, that is, the degree to which CO2 is responsible for the measured warming.



evidence of there being about 20 scientists who question?

To me both sides have good points. I do not see why it has to be so black and white. Perhaps both are somewhat right. It seems like the science behind global climate is not very old or very well understood, so I am going to wait awhile to make a judgement. Alternative fuel sources are a good idea in many practical ways so I am all for pursuing that.


It has to be black and white because if the CO2 is responsible for the current warming phase, it means the temperature will continue to rise for a hundreds of years, causing drastic changes to the climate.

[Meadmaker]

There are about 20 scientists who question anthropogenic global warming, ...

Are they publishing in scientific journals?

[Meadmaker]

It has to be black and white because if the CO2 is responsible for the current warming phase, it means the temperature will continue to rise for a hundreds of years, causing drastic changes to the climate.

I don't buy this. Why should it be so? More importantly, in my opinion, has anyone published a scientific paper that makes this claim?

[Slimething]

This is not just opinion. It is scientific research, following the tried and proven scientific method.

Well, yes and no. The measurements indicating a warming planet are fairly well established. But that is not the controversy. For now, let's call the science part global warming in small letters and the front-page controversy Global Warming in caps. They really are only related in name.

The controversy is fueled by the interpretation of the measurements which, to my mind, bears little resemblance to the scientific method. Atmospheric models developed to track current effect and predict future results of the current warming rate have not yet been validated. In fact, one of the anti-global warming's best points against Global Warming is that the models are deviating significantly from measured temperatures in the short run. Yet, we have some Global Warming people proclaiming that we are already doomed. (Does that sound like sound science to you?)

In my view, politicians and headline-hogs are using Global Warming to scare the pants off people. This is far from what is needed. What is needed is for the science of global warming to get on track and finesse the models such that they are fairly predictive so we can see the scope of the problem. This would be a true application of the scientific method.

The models then can also be of much use in determining what the best remediation plan would be to get us out of a jam (if indeed we can). Short of this, we are rooting around in the dark.

I do agree that it's doubtful that there would be no consequence of humans spewing of all that garbage into the atmosphere but that does not mean we have to abandon reason and mischaracterize the possible problem of global warming. However, at this point in time, I can fairly attest that no one knows for sure if there is a problem, how serious it is or what exactly to do about it.

A final word. I'm a scientist. There is an age old maxim that holds pretty well in predicting that, given n scientists in a room, you have n+1 opinions. Don't hold your breath waiting for a consensus on anything from that community.

[a_unique_person]

Well, yes and no. The measurements indicating a warming planet are fairly well established. But that is not the controversy. For now, let's call the science part global warming in small letters and the front-page controversy Global Warming in caps. They really are only related in name.



Not really. The IPCC is predicting consequences that are severe. I have a scientist friend working for the CSIRO on this, including work on the models. He does believe AGW is real, but he thinks we can work to manage the consequences, but that governments are ignoring those consequences. He does not believe there will be a runaway effect, but he does believe the temperature will keep rising for many years to come.



The controversy is fueled by the interpretation of the measurements which, to my mind, bears little resemblance to the scientific method. Atmospheric models developed to track current effect and predict future results of the current warming rate have not yet been validated. In fact, one of the anti-global warming's best points against Global Warming is that the models are deviating significantly from measured temperatures in the short run. Yet, we have some Global Warming people proclaiming that we are already doomed. (Does that sound like sound science to you?)



What are the errors with those models? From what I have read, the only error is that they underestimate the effects of AGW, since the Arctic and glaciers are melting faster than was estimated.

[Schneibster]

Having done some source research on the Telegraph, I find that I'm pretty certain now that, unfortunately, it appears Julian Morris (may his soul rot in... well, a place very much like here will be pretty soon if his ilk don't catch a fatal case of ebola) means, specifically, "Global warming isn't real, and we shouldn't spend money on it." So I'd have to say that I'm pretty much not in agreement with that.

[Slimething]

The IPCC is predicting consequences that are severe. I have a scientist friend working for the CSIRO on this, including work on the models. He does believe AGW is real, but he thinks we can work to manage the consequences, but that governments are ignoring those consequences. He does not believe there will be a runaway effect, but he does believe the temperature will keep rising for many years to come.

I have to side with your friend but that may be wishful thinking on my part. The IPCC predicting severe consequences is difficult to understand because, although the warming of the planet is confirmed, the computer models being used right now to forecast the future temperature of the Earth are not validated. So, at best, I think of dire predictions as guesswork and I hope they're too extreme.

The factor that disturbs me the most of the phenomenon, as I understand it, is the lag time between the time humanity makes a relevant change and the onset of effective relief from those changes. It's kind of like standing on your brake pedal and hoping you did so in time. But, right now, it's all guesswork. Very astute guesswork but it's going to take a little more to convince the people that matter to make the needed changes.

What are the errors with those models? From what I have read, the only error is that they underestimate the effects of AGW, since the Arctic and glaciers are melting faster than was estimated.

Like you, I've read a lot of point/counterpoint on this issue. I don't question that GW is occuring. However, the counterpoint that I find credible because I've seen it from lotsa sources and not just the hotheads (excuse the pun) is that, since the predictive models have been used to forecast the rate of warming, the mean temperature of the planet has not warmed nearly as fast as predicted. And, frankly, mean temperature must, in my opinion, be the empirical test for global warming as it's the only absolute we have.

Of course, secondary effects like ice melting are the effects we will all feel and will make our lives miserable so I'm not discounting them. There's a dichotomy taking place in GW discussion and that's the fate of the planet vs the fate of humanity. I don't really think we're as much concerned about the planet itself as we are for ourselves. However, many in the "anti" camp are critiquing GW prognostications on the fact that they won't affect the planet all that much and turn a blind eye to the fact that we humans are much more vulnerable than the rock we live on.

[a_unique_person]

I have to side with your friend but that may be wishful thinking on my part. The IPCC predicting severe consequences is difficult to understand because, although the warming of the planet is confirmed, the computer models being used right now to forecast the future temperature of the Earth are not validated. So, at best, I think of dire predictions as guesswork and I hope they're too extreme.



Hope is not a recognised risk management method.

When he says we can manage it, he means we can, but it will cost a lot of money, and cause a lot of pain. That is, he doesn't see the human race going extinct. He does, however, think that just preventing the AGW would be a lot more sensible. I guess he just doesn't see anyone being able to change the human need for cheap energy. When I asked him if oil running out would help, he said there is heaps of oil out there. It's going to cost a lot more to use, but we'll just process all that oil sand, etc anyway. He is also one of those incurable optimists, which does worry me.

[Cuddles]

I was asking why it matters if it is a consensus, i asked if a majority somehow made it correct. you said the preponderance of the data is what matters (which boils down to majority again, just not in people but in research). I am not getting anywhere in this discussion by having you restate your opinion. So lets just forget it. a consensus points to truth in your opinion, but not mine. perhaps that should be a whole different thread all together.

A concensus doesn't necessarily mean something is correct, but depending on who holds the concensus it can support it. In this case you have climatologists, who have proabably spent most of their lives learning how the climate works, most of whom look at the data and come to the conclusion that humans are the cause of at least part of the current warming trend. This is not just asking the average Joe on the street, these are the people who are most qualified to interpret the data, and the fact that most of them come to the same conclusion very strongly suggests that this is the correct conclusion to draw from this data. In most cases the mainstream view is correct because it gets to be the mainstream by standing up to repeated testing. They may have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at an awful lot of people who were wrong.

Of course, no scientist would use this as a scientific argument to support their theory, but it is very useful when discussing things with laypeople to be able to say "Most experts in the field think this is the case". Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when you appeal to the correct authority.

Edit : With regards to a_unique_person's apparent ambiguity over whether it is the data or the concensus that is important, the concensus of scientists should lead the layperson to assume that the data supports their conclusion, otherwise they wouldn't all have reached the same conclusion. Equally, if there is a lot of good evidence for a conclusion, one could reliably assume that that conclusion is the concensus among experts in the field.

[Beerina]

AUP- Yes indeed, civilisation is an artifact of stable conditions. While humans thrived in the last ice age and emerged from it in a strong position, we could not support present populations through another one- and may be unable to do so through a period as warm as the Cenozoic optimum
The question is one of time scale.
The geological data cannot distinguish rapid changes on the same scale as day to day records. We are comparing apples with aardvaarks.That does not prove rapid change did not happen. Interestingly, when we start to get short term records from ice cores, the evidence suggests that extremely fast change is the norm rather than the exception.

One of the things that really scared me was about 10-15 years ago, when some scientists released a report that ice ages may come on in as little as a couple of years. It wasn't necessarily a slow cooling over a thousand years or more.

[DeviousB]

Shut off the thermo-haline circulation (THC) and Europe gets a new ice ace in a very few years (not so much The Day After Tomorrow, more The Next Birthday But One).
:)

One of the other climate threads here included a graph of reconstructed local temperatures from the end of the Younger Dryas period. This was a time at the end of the Pleistocene when the general trend towards deglaciation suddenly reversed for about 1000 years over a fair swathe of the northern hemispere. It is currently believed that this sudden freeze may have been due to disruption of the THC by meltwater from deglaciation. When the THC eventually reasserted itself the subsequent warming was similarly as dramatic.