Now I'm confused — global warming

[moe darklight]

I give up. I now officially have no opinion about global warming. none.

This 20/20 segment sums up pretty well why:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o

 

[sneez]

Why so? Interesting is that all the information presented in the piece has been iterated on this very forum many times, except no thread expressing the slightest doubt on the spin of global warming came out. I wonder if we really need the illusion of authority which in this case is bunch of non scientists on TV talking extracting the same information that is readily available. (This is nothing against you moe, its an observation that fits now for this issue as for any other)

The piece summarizes it well, the debate is far from over, and any religiously held feelings on this issue in either case are to be postponed. And on the contrary, one should get strong opinion that more information is needed, and not fall for one camp unconditionally.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Moe, it does appear that more and more people are refusing to be told to shut up and believe without scientific proof to back up it up.

Vanesch wrote a great post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1467020&postcount=65

 

[moe darklight]

that is a great post; I feel the same way.

better safe than sorry; I think that not knowing the consequences of so much pollution is just as scary as those flooding maps in Gore's movies, and is reason enough to take better care of the environment.

but it's hard for me to trust a group of people who seem to be pushing so hard to silence those who question them. activism and research should be kept separate from each other; it's not possible to study anything objectively if you already have such strong opinions about the result.

Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves.— Carl Sagan

the end result is that people like me just get frustrated and feel like we're being yelled at or something; like when kids are told to "just do as you're told! you're not old enough to understand."— I can't imagine how much more frustrating it is for professionals in the field who who question global warming; the way they are treated by the media, they might as well be war criminals.

 

[Evo]

and another great post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1467349&postcount=68

This quote holds true "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who claim to have found it."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can show you more scientists who argue for the existence of visiting aliens. Does that mean that I can move the UFO stuff to the Astronomy forum?

The official position is that we have 90% confidence in AGW. That doesn't mean certainty. But from a political point of view, unless dramatic new evidence emerges, the debate is over. Al Gore is 100% correct.

I don't think 20/20 qualifies as the most relieable scientific resource. Maybe the IPCC would be a better reference; unless you buy into all of those conspiracy theories.

Note that conspiracy theories are banned at PF.

 

[sneez]

Ivan, you are begging the question...

 

[Evo]

I can show you more scientists who argue for the existence of visiting aliens. Does that mean that I can move the UFO stuff to the Astronomy forum?

The official position is that we have 90% confidence in AGW. That doesn't mean certainty. But from a political point of view, unless dramatic new evidence emerges, the debate is over. Al Gore is 100% correct.

I don't think 20/20 qualifies as the most relieable scientific resource. Maybe the IPCC would be a better reference; unless you buy into all of those conspiracy theories.

Note that conspiracy theories are banned at PF.

What conspiracy theory? The only non-scientist interviewed was Al Gore. And as Vanesch pointed out, nothing is over, there are no conclusive results.

 

[Astronuc]

I think one needs to distinguish between GW (or CC, climate change) and AGW.

There seems to be a consensus on GW/CC (we are certainly experiencing it locally) but seems to be greater disagreement on the anthropogenic role.

 

[Evo]

I think one needs to distinguish between GW (or CC, climate change) and AGW.

There seems to be a consensus on GW/CC (we are certainly experiencing it locally) but seems to be greater disagreement on the anthropogenic role.

Yes, and if we should intervene in the course of nature. I'm all for cleaning up our messes, but we humans have a pretty long track record of making things worse by trying to fix things.

MK wrote a great piece that bears repeating.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1369448&postcount=2

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly one has to understand the mechanisms causing GW/CC in order to apply an effective remedy.

 

[moe darklight]

I don't think 20/20 qualifies as the most relieable scientific resource. Maybe the IPCC would be a better reference; unless you buy into all of those conspiracy theories.

20/20 wasn't my source. I just saw the piece and thought it reflected my feelings on the matter.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy; I don't believe there is such a thing as a group of shady people who sit around to plot about how to rule the world.
I do, however, think it's careless to not recognize that people's personal interests and politics do often get in the way of law and truth, and we have to pay attention when we suspect this is happening.

I'm not doubting the climate is changing— it's October 26 here in Canada and people are walking outside in T-shirts. my doubts are in regards to questions like why is it changing, how much does human activity affect that change, could there be other factors involved?

By saying "the debate is over," they are deriding and even demonizing those who want to investigate the first and last questions, and limiting those investigating the second.

I'm not saying I don't believe Co2 plays a part in global warming; I don't have a Phd in meteorology so I'm really in no place to make any assumptions. I'm saying it's irresponsible to say "shut up. the debate is over. no more questions" on a subject that we don't understand even remotely... I have yet to hear a scientist claim we understand anywhere near accurately the atmosphere and climate of our planet.

I don't think there is anything more unscientific than a group of people claiming authority on a subject and belittling those who wish to test their results.

 

[vanesch]

20/20 wasn't my source. I just saw the piece and thought it reflected my feelings on the matter.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy; I don't believe there is such a thing as a group of shady people who sit around to plot about how to rule the world.
I do, however, think it's careless to not recognize that people's personal interests and politics do often get in the way of law and truth, and we have to pay attention when we suspect this is happening.

I'm not doubting the climate is changing— it's October 26 here in Canada and people are walking outside in T-shirts. my doubts are in regards to questions like why is it changing, how much does human activity affect that change, could there be other factors involved?

By saying "the debate is over," they are deriding and even demonizing those who want to investigate the first and last questions, and limiting those investigating the second.

I'm not saying I don't believe Co2 plays a part in global warming; I don't have a Phd in meteorology so I'm really in no place to make any assumptions. I'm saying it's irresponsible to say "shut up. the debate is over. no more questions" on a subject that we don't understand even remotely... I have yet to hear a scientist claim we understand anywhere near accurately the atmosphere and climate of our planet.

I don't think there is anything more unscientific than a group of people claiming authority on a subject and belittling those who wish to test their results.

This is EXACTLY the feeling I have. I am also torn between two stances: respect of authority (after all, I'm no climatologist) by knowledgeable people on one hand, and in my opinion a failure to the typically critical attitude in scientific development (I *am* a scientist) on the other hand.

I find the agressivity by which critical questions are whiped away rather doubtful. I can understand this about crackpottery in well-established domains, but not in an emerging science.

This is like seeing a bunch of renowed surgeons spit on their instruments before doing a delicate operation on a patient. Of course you don't claim to know more about surgery than they do, but you definitely know that there's something fishy about the hygiene of spitting on their cutters before opening the skin of the patient!

So maybe they DO know what they are doing, but it brings a blow to their credibility if they cannot patiently explain why they do this.

I'm actually in the process of reading through the IPCC technical documents - if I can get through it I think I'll start a thread on it soon if I find some time. Lots of things bother me as a scientist, although I'm not a specialist in the field. I'm looking at a bunch of famous brain surgeons spitting on their tools...

I would like to stress again that I think that there are sufficient elements on the table to take the *hypothesis* of AGW seriously, and be "better safe than sorry" and think about what one can do against it right now. But in as much as I find that there is enough material on the table to consider the hypothesis of AGW, and to deal with its potential consequences, I also find that the scientific case is far from established. The latter, by definition, means that the debate should be open, and that the attitude (not of the politicians, but of the scientists) should be critical. And when I look, I find groupthink.

 

[billiards]

If you were a climatologist and your entire funding was based on protecting civilization from catastrophe, would you go around telling everyone that things were probably going to be alright, or even that you weren't really sure?

 

[vanesch]

If you were a climatologist and your entire funding was based on protecting civilization from catastrophe, would you go around telling everyone that things were probably going to be alright, or even that you weren't really sure?

I would tell the truth. I would tell what I know, what I don't know, what could happen, and what is pretty sure.

As Feynman tells us: science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know.

Again, I'm NOT at all claiming that AGW is bogus. If I understand things a bit, there is very suggestive data and there are suggestive models that AGW is a genuine possibility. THAT by itself is largely sufficient to warrant prudence, and to warrant a policy that reduces the emission of greenhouse gasses, UNTIL we know for sure.

But that's still different from being absolutely sure about the FACT of AGW, and on a scientific level, the discussion should be OPEN, with investigation of criticism.

Again, Feynman: you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong.

It is THIS what I find missing. Critics are not welcome, and we all sing the same tune.

I cannot make a statement myself about AGW, I only find the way the *science* is dealt with, a bit disturbing. (I've seen the same in string theory...)

But understand me well: the suggestion of the existence of AGW is for me good enough to warrant a policy that reduces greenhouse gas emission. So on the policy side, this doesn't change a thing. But it is the scientific side which I find bizarre in this business.

 

[Q_Goest]

The IPCC may be a combination of both political and scientific interests, but scientific journals are not. Having kept an eye on the journals of Nature and Science for the past 10+ years, I’ve seen a gradual shift in the attitudes of climatologists in those journals from one of questioning whether global warming is real or not to questioning how dramatic an affect there will be on the Earth. If you look today, you will find papers in those journals not only supporting the phenomena of global warming, but more and more they are looking into what those changes will mean for life on Earth. Typical example worth reading through:
http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Fall2002/Globalwarming-FA02.htm

On the flip side, there are individual climatologists who have serious concerns about even if global warming exists. Mr. Lindzen for example, is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and from the following reference, he clearly sides against those global warming alarmists. About this issue of one-sidedness in the journals of Science and Nature Mr. Lindzen says:

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.

Ref: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Mr. Lindzen provides an excellent article, and worth reading.

Just to summarize this thought, it seems obvious that the IPCC shouldn’t be pointed to as the only global warming camp. The editors at Science and at Nature, the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, are in the global warming camp.

Why?

No doubt, the editors at these two scientific journals receive dozens if not hundreds of potential papers to publish each week (these are weekly journals). These papers are reviewed and critiqued by peers, and the general consensus seems to be that global warming is both real and a potential concern to humanity.

Is there a prejudice at these journals against papers which question global warming or its affects? Yes, there is. But it has taken over a decade for this prejudice to unfold.

Opinions in science change gradually, there is an ‘opinion mass’ which has significant inertia and can not be altered quickly. But it has changed, and it is not the IPCC that has directed this change, albeit, they may now have too much influence over various aspects of political involvement.

I think this last point is crucial, and one that is also brought out by Lindzen’s article referenced above. Once the science is established, we then need to concern ourselves with how that science is changed into political policy. We obviously need to consider how best to implement changes to the burning of fossil fuel. But how those changes are implemented will always be a contentious issue.

 

[Astronuc]

I would tell the truth. I would tell what I know, what I don't know, what could happen, and what is pretty sure.

As Feynman tells us: science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know.

Again, I'm NOT at all claiming that AGW is bogus. If I understand things a bit, there is very suggestive data and there are suggestive models that AGW is a genuine possibility. THAT by itself is largely sufficient to warrant prudence, and to warrant a policy that reduces the emission of greenhouse gasses, UNTIL we know for sure.

But that's still different from being absolutely sure about the FACT of AGW, and on a scientific level, the discussion should be OPEN, with investigation of criticism.

Again, Feynman: you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong.

It is THIS what I find missing. Critics are not welcome, and we all sing the same tune.

I cannot make a statement myself about AGW, I only find the way the *science* is dealt with, a bit disturbing. (I've seen the same in string theory...)

But understand me well: the suggestion of the existence of AGW is for me good enough to warrant a policy that reduces greenhouse gas emission. So on the policy side, this doesn't change a thing. But it is the scientific side which I find bizarre in this business.

Excellent post! Telling the TRUTH is what it's all about. That's why I became interested in science - because I want to KNOW the TRUTH about things.

Besides being intelligent/smart, as scientist must be objective! On the other hand, too many people, particularly politicians, seem to be subjective - besides being more concerned about personal interests ( ).

I grew up with a certain skepticism of authority, and my experience has proven that skepticism is well founded.

As for GW/AGW/CC - certainly the climate is changing (it always has and always will), and it appears at the moment to be in a warming trend. I know this from local conditions over the past 20 years, and I can seen the changes right outside my door. We have plant and animal species from warmer climates competing with indigenous species that are traditionally adapted to predominantly colder climates.

We also see the increase and onset of serious diseases that were largely confined to certain tropical areas. Locally, we have recent incidents of a certain type of hemorragic fever, which is new this area. Wildlife patholigists are trying to understand it, but the spread of the disease seems related to local warming trends.

The key question/concern is - what are the ramifications of GW? Well, there are concerns about food and water supply, which could have significant consequences with respect to societies' ability to provide for standards of living to which we are now accustomed, as well as potential threat to health, welfare and possible survival of those societies.

However - in order to implement 'effective' mitigating strategies, we must know 'as best we can' what exactly is the influence of several key variables, such as

the energy incident upon the atmosphere (i.e. solar radiance),
the energy storage and transport mechanisms within the atmosphere and surface of the earth.

Certainly CO2 is a concern based on the heavy use of fossils fuels, which has grown considerably over the past few decades, BUT

What about methane and GHG related to agriculture?

What about water vapor, which is a consequence of our power generation techniques and agricultural practices?

These last two questions mean much more than simply changing the way we use fossil fuels. They require huge shifts in the ways we do energy production, transportation and agriculture!

 

[billiards]

I would tell the truth. I would tell what I know, what I don't know, what could happen, and what is pretty sure.

As Feynman tells us: science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know.

Again, I'm NOT at all claiming that AGW is bogus. If I understand things a bit, there is very suggestive data and there are suggestive models that AGW is a genuine possibility. THAT by itself is largely sufficient to warrant prudence, and to warrant a policy that reduces the emission of greenhouse gasses, UNTIL we know for sure.

But that's still different from being absolutely sure about the FACT of AGW, and on a scientific level, the discussion should be OPEN, with investigation of criticism.

Again, Feynman: you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong.

It is THIS what I find missing. Critics are not welcome, and we all sing the same tune.

I cannot make a statement myself about AGW, I only find the way the *science* is dealt with, a bit disturbing. (I've seen the same in string theory...)

But understand me well: the suggestion of the existence of AGW is for me good enough to warrant a policy that reduces greenhouse gas emission. So on the policy side, this doesn't change a thing. But it is the scientific side which I find bizarre in this business.

Well, most of the climate papers I've read don't talk directly about AGW, at least not in a "humans are destroying the world, and the debate's over!" kind of way. That kind of talk comes from articles by press-friendly scientists (like Bill Mcguire - the guy who compared AGW deniers to holocaust deniers, who happens to be a volcanologist (not even a climatologist!) on the UK govs natural disasters panel), and politicians.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What conspiracy theory? The only non-scientist interviewed was Al Gore. And as Vanesch pointed out, nothing is over, there are no conclusive results.

Oh please, the four scientists in the video. Did you watch it? [edit: Wait, the only non-scientist? I guess I missed the point]

The key argument against the official position on AGW is a conspiracy to get grant money. Suddenly, when faced with a consensus, the denialist claim that science can't be trusted.

I was not aware that Vanesch was a climate scientist. The definitive reference is the IPCC, and they claim 90% confidence in AGW; and that the debate about GW is over entirely. Without meaning to beat up on Vanesch who specified that he is not a climate expert, this is no different than any other subject, so why do the opinions of non-experts suddenly matter? We don't allow this in any other forum.

It is one thing to recognize that we have 10% uncertainty, but this is hardly a wide-open question, and I don't know how much certainty is even possible; for all that we know, this may be as good as it can get under an circumstances. Also, the two countries with the most to lose by making a more bold statement - the US and China - were the only groups that objected to a declaration of 95% confidence in the AGW model. So if you want to talk about bias, there you go.

 

[Evo]

Oh please, the four scientists in the video. Did you watch it?

You mean the group of world renowned climate scientists, several of which left the IPCC in disgust over the skewing of data and that would just like to see some honesty? You call that a conspiracy theory? <shakes head>

 

[jim mcnamara]

The central problem is this:

testability or the ability to falsify a hypothesis. IMO.

For example, for pulmonary fibrosis secondary to pulmonary silicosis. It was possible to create in lab rats and goats the identical pathologies seen in humans by exposing the lab animals to airborne microfine $$Si0_{2}$$ particles, so Koch's Postulates could be established. The tests were repeated in a lot of labs, because the cost of changing ventilation systems and personal breathing gizmos in the mining industry was horrifically expensive.

We do not have a "rat" Earth to run tests on to confrim the diagnosis of a climate pathology induced by humans. We rely on climate models and sometimes spotty world-wide climatological data from the immediate past (from a climate point of view).

And to pretend there is no bias in Science or in Science funding is just plain wrong. Human gender studies are a case in point. Funding for gender studies fell off a cliff several years back - a fact not unnoticed by the SNF:
http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/wom_auftragsstudie_e.pdf
The term the document uses is "leaks". I don't know what that means precisely in funding-speak.

The real issue is falsification of a hypothesis of anthropogenic mediated climate change.
How do we do that or establish that we tried real hard to falsify? I'm not a climate scientist.

Denying funding and publication does not give me the warm fuzzies. Neither does blowing off the whole hypothesis based on say 1%-5% of older papers in a field I don't understand. Especially if the cost of being wrong either way may be bad.

 

[Bystander]

The central problem is this:

testability or the ability to falsify a hypothesis. IMO.

(snip)The real issue is falsification of a hypothesis of anthropogenic mediated climate change.
How do we do that or establish that we tried real hard to falsify? (snip)

Fact: sea level has risen 10-20 cm over the past 150a.

IPCC hypothesis: sea level rise is due to melting of ice caps.

Test: do the mass balance. You want the monthly GRACE maps? http://gracetellus.jpl.nasa.gov/month_mass.html

Need dimensions on ice caps? Hit the CIA fact book. Ocean areas? Same.

Lemme know what you find.

 

[sneez]

bystender, the point is how to decouple human and natural influences. Hence, all the facts which you elucidate can be postulated to be caused by natural cycles. (And yes, there is strong evidence comming out to support it. Just yeasterday I attended talk by J. Burrows who has shown the complexity of the issue if one considers science as a tool for investigation)

 

[Bystander]

bystender, the point is how to decouple human and natural influences.

The point of the OP is whether there is anything to the IPCC arguments.

Hence, all the facts which you elucidate can be postulated to be caused by natural cycles. (And yes, there is strong evidence comming out to support it.

"It" refers to what? "Natural cycles?"

Just yeasterday I attended talk by J. Burrows who has shown the complexity of the issue if one considers science as a tool for investigation)

JM was asking for "tests" of the IPCC arguments; I gave him one. People with scientific backgrounds ARE qualified to critique the science presented in discussions of global warming. People who dodge questions with the statement, "I'm not a climatologist," aren't really qualified to function in any scientific or technical field; the same principles apply to ALL scientific and technical fields, conservation laws, and well established methods and standards for measurements of mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current/charge, and luminous intensity. Lack of qualification to apply these principles in one field (climatology) is lack of qualification to apply them in any field.

 

[sneez]

The point of the OP is whether there is anything to the IPCC arguments.

Well, its been said so many time over and over, IPCC does no research. Hence, the arguments are really from done science by other ppl. And those arguments and contra-arguments is what this is all about and the point again is that there is something to most of them.

"It" refers to what? "Natural cycles?"

The talk I was referring to, for example, stressed upon tropospheric chemistry and climate impact. The point was that it cannot be decoupled from stratosphere and ultimatelly from all the atmosphere, biosphere, litosphere,and from hydrosphere. He showed really nice plots so many various pollutions and cycles in chemistry coupled to all those "spheres" I mentioned. Compounds like bromine, iodine and stuff that's less that 0.nothing percent of atmosphere having control over much of chemistry is surprising, and is only now starting to be consistently considered in the models. CFC's are still an issue, he even proposed that by 2020 pollution from ships traffic will be the same order as from cars and planes, stuff I never heard considered before, but its right now we are able to see ship trails of pollution from satellites which initiate chemistry never before known over ocean regions. Even temperature and slight deviations from CO2vmr are an issue. He showed how the variations over seasons and days is smoothed and ultimatelly inaccurate from the ground state station measurements of these quantities. He pointed out that technology that already exists to monitor all of these to unprecendented resulution in time and space, globally from satellites.

If you really are unaware that an effect may have more than one consistent explanation, search for Andre's threads on this forum to look for at least opposite opinion. THere is no point of us posting over and over the same stuff. I just wanted to stress the point that fact of melting ice caps does not, have to be caused by human activities. (There is even nature paper in 2004, that states sun activity in recent decades in comparison over past 11000yrs to be the most likelly source of the global changes you are referring to). Just to prohibit wrong interpretation of my post, I am not insisting that this or any other opinion is true, I am saying that scintifically, one cannot conclude that yet with the naive certainty that is sought after to influence the public.

People with scientific backgrounds ARE qualified to critique the science presented in discussions of global warming. People who dodge questions with the statement, "I'm not a climatologist," aren't really qualified to function in any scientific or technical field; the same principles apply to ALL scientific and technical fields, conservation laws, and well established methods and standards for measurements of mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current/charge, and luminous intensity. Lack of qualification to apply these principles in one field (climatology) is lack of qualification to apply them in any field.

I am missing the point of this?

 

[billiards]

Fact: sea level has risen 10-20 cm over the past 150a.

IPCC hypothesis: sea level rise is due to melting of ice caps.

Test: do the mass balance. You want the monthly GRACE maps? http://gracetellus.jpl.nasa.gov/month_mass.html

Need dimensions on ice caps? Hit the CIA fact book. Ocean areas? Same.

Lemme know what you find.

Bystander, all you are saying here is that melting ice caps causes sea level to rise. WOW! I hate to be sarcastic but that's just common sense really, I learned that in first year sedimentology, it's not really that ground breaking and it is not the 'IPCC hypothesis'. The question in hand is: what is causing the ice caps to melt? Is it man?
now that's a harder question, no GRACE data alonewill give you the answer to that one.

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, all you are saying here is that melting ice caps causes sea level to rise. WOW!

Nerp --- read the post again --- carefully.

I hate to be sarcastic

Sarcasm? Hardly --- a geophysicist who relies on his intuition rather than DOING the mass balance? That's sarcasm.

but that's just common sense really, I learned that in first year sedimentology, it's not really that ground breaking and it is not the 'IPCC hypothesis'. The question in hand is: what is causing the ice caps to melt?

The question in hand is whether a lot of intuitive nonsense stands up to a mass balance.

Is it man?
now that's a harder question, no GRACE data alonewill give you the answer to that one.

3.5x10⁸km² (ocean area) x 17 cm (IPCC sea level rise) = 6x10⁴km³ water; divide by density of ice (0.9), = 6.6x10⁴km³ ice; divide by surface area of Greenland and Antarctica, (1.5x10⁷km²), and you've got an average topographic loss of 4.4 m over the past century, or, 4 cm/a, 20cm over the five years GRACE has been flying. Should stick out like a sore thumb in the photographic record, topo surveys, barometric readings, GRACE, ice patrol records, and whatnot.

 

[billiards]

Seems to me like you're just being stubborn. You've clearly missed the point and now you're just digging a deeper hole. The question is NOT whether a lot of intuitive nonsense stands up to a mass balance, you span that out of thin air.

3.5x108km2 (ocean area) x 17 cm (IPCC sea level rise) = 6x104km3 water; divide by density of ice (0.9), = 6.6x104km3 ice; divide by surface area of Greenland and Antarctica, (1.5x107km2), and you've got an average topographic loss of 4.4 m over the past century, or, 4 cm/a, 20cm over the five years GRACE has been flying.

In fact if you were smart you would have realized that in your mass balance you were inherently assuming that water was being exchanged between the oceans and ice sheets (and the net effect of other potential sources and sinks = 0) - which is equivalent to the intuition that melting ice caps causes sea level to rise. (Although at this point it is worth adding that approxaimately half of global sea rise is due to thermal expansion (something your mass balance failed to account for)). But this is NOT the point! This has no connotation with the human factor of global warming. Perhaps you should reread this entire thread (apart from the last few bits) if you don't believe me.

 

[vanesch]

I was not aware that Vanesch was a climate scientist. The definitive reference is the IPCC, and they claim 90% confidence in AGW; and that the debate about GW is over entirely. Without meaning to beat up on Vanesch who specified that he is not a climate expert, this is no different than any other subject, so why do the opinions of non-experts suddenly matter? We don't allow this in any other forum.

I don't claim to be a climate expert, but I do claim to be a scientist, and hence an "expert" on the scientific method. Climate science is an applied science, in that it doesn't put into doubt any fundamental knowledge of physics, chemistry or biology, but just builds upon it. As such, facts beyond doubt should be arguable from that basic knowledge, and from empirical data, and you can't find that watertight argument. For something to be established *beyond doubt*, the argument has to be watertight. The only thing left for skeptics would then be to attack the fundamentals, which would correspond to desperate crackpottery.

There are two ways to establish a scientific fact beyond doubt: overwhelming empirical evidence, or watertight theoretical modelling based upon undisputable basic facts. We are trying to establish a cause-effect relationship, which can empirically only be established by:
1) having a strong correlation between cause and effect
2) altering "randomly" the cause, and still observing the correlation.

Given that we've not yet diminished human CO2 production, and observed a corresponding decrease of atmospheric CO2 and a corresponding decrease in global temperature, it is fundamentally impossible to establish a cause-effect relationship based upon empirical observation alone, in principle. We can at most observe a strong correlation between human CO2 production, atmospheric CO2 content and temperature rise, but there's nothing that makes this correlation in a cause-effect relationship as long as we haven't introduced random variation of the expected cause. As such, it is in principle impossible to find any such cause-effect purely by empirical observation alone.
This WILL be possible if we start dimishing our CO2 production, over about 100 years or so. THEN there will be a strong case for the empirical establishment of cause-effect. But not before. No correlation can do so. There can be a common cause.

The modeling is as of now by far not "watertight" enough to be a reasoning "beyond doubt" (meaning, if the data do not correspond to the model, that means that one or other fundamental input is wrong, in a "reductio ad absurdum" argument).

You only enter the "established beyond doubt" case, when in order to be able to find a loophole to put the statement in doubt, you have to wrinkle yourself in such crazy forms that you have an avalanche of statements you have to put in doubt.

Example: statement: "diamond is made of carbon in a "diamond" lattice." If you want to put that statement in doubt, you have to explain diffraction patterns of X-rays differently than through normal EM propagation, which puts in doubt Maxwell's equations, which...
You also have to put in doubt a lot of quantum chemistry, which calculates correctly the bond lengths, you have to put in doubt part of thermodynamics concerning the measurements of internal energy and entropy and so on ; in other words, in order to be able to put in doubt the statement "diamond is made of carbon in a diamond lattice", you get such an overwhelming amount of fundamental knowledge that you have to put in doubt, that this is crazy. Hence, "diamond is made of carbon in a "diamond" lattice." is a statement that can be assumed scientifically established beyond doubt.

I'm simply saying that AGW hasn't reached that level of scientific certainty. In fact, when you - as an intellectual exercise - put AGW in doubt, there's not much else that you need to put in doubt. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to. Like all people on the frontier of science, you have to make educated guesses of what's probably true, and you work your way in trying to prove and disprove it. That work is ongoing right now. Personally, I think it might very well be true. And as such, as a scientist, I would have liked to see that climatologists try to prove it WRONG. Try to find all possible explanations that show that AGW is NOT true. If they can then only come up with totally crazy schemes, THEN I would consider AGW as "scientifically established". In the mean time, I think it is probably true - that's what I call "it's suggestive". If I have to make a bet, I would say, AGW is true. But if it is "scientifically established" then there's no bet to make. Like there's no bet to make on the crystal structure of diamond.

I'm as such, not disputing AGW by itself, I'm disputing the - IMO - doubtful scientific attitude in the business.

It is one thing to recognize that we have 10% uncertainty, but this is hardly a wide-open question, and I don't know how much certainty is even possible; for all that we know, this may be as good as it can get under an circumstances. Also, the two countries with the most to lose by making a more bold statement - the US and China - were the only groups that objected to a declaration of 95% confidence in the AGW model. So if you want to talk about bias, there you go.

Well, if the confidence interval were a scientifically established number, then there would be no discussion about it (and it wouldn't be a round number such as 90% or 95%).

 

[jim mcnamara]

Fact: sea level has risen 10-20 cm over the past 150a.

IPCC hypothesis: sea level rise is due to melting of ice caps.

Test: do the mass balance. You want the monthly GRACE maps? http://gracetellus.jpl.nasa.gov/month_mass.html

Need dimensions on ice caps? Hit the CIA fact book. Ocean areas? Same.

Lemme know what you find.

I'm NOT saying there is no science. By the way, if you read what I said, it does appear things are warming. It's the cause and modality of treatment that everone is fussing about, IMO. And the reasons for the fuss are, again IMO:

1. some scientists disagree on cause, are squelched and publications disallowed. Not cool.
2. conservative groups are opposed to any action. Not cool.
3. liberal groups want major change now. Not cool.
4. Fundmentalist groups apparently believe it contradicts the Bible. Not cool.
5. The problem of deciding what to do seems limited mostly to the US. Not cool. Especially if the anthropogenic version is correct, since the US is a major carbon source.

So who's got it right?

For an example let's move away from this polarized debate for a minute. There is debate among scientists about the cause of aging. One hypothesis, Bruce Ames and others, claim it is due largely to mitochondrial damage mediating syntheis of nasty metabolic byproducts. Another hypothesis is that it is an epigenetic effect manifested in DNA that codes for malformed proteins. There is reasonable evidence on both sides. But, everybody is allowed to publish. Maybe both sides are right - that has happened before.

That's my point of view - CC has gone political. So everybody loses. And your post is equally condescending, BTW. Do you in fact have all the perfect answers, especially to these questions:

Is the climate diseased or just going thru normal didoes?
If it is diseased what is the cure? (Don't neglect global dimming vs clean up)

I don't know.