I enjoyed the documentary aired recently on C4. I was left feeling somewhat confused by the whole debate.
Speaking as someone who previously blindly accepted the majority opinion that C02 was the main contributor to global warming i'm now not sure what to believe.
Is there someone who can confirm the position.
The contributors in the program spoke of scientific 'Fact' ie that the evidence from core samples disproves the notion that we as human beings are contributing to global warming, is this not the case? Surely the core samples are not open to interpretation (or is that me being naive?)
Of course we can argue all day about which body is funding which argument, that governments seek to top up lost tax revenue with other tax generators..
... but isn't science all about facts?
Can anyone recommend any reading to substantiate the argument for and against the positions proposed in the C4 doc?
The problem is that for every 'fact' there are a dozen interpretations of the significance and impact of that 'fact'. Furthermore, for every known fact there are a hundred unknowns and assumptions.
This is why they whole thing has turned into a mud slinging competition with religious zeal -- there aren't enough facts so substitute beliefs.
A commentary by Gavin Scmidt of NASA Goddard Institute and William Connelly of the British Antartic Survey, at RealClimate (a site run by scientists to counter programmes like the GW Swindle.
Scientists are human like anyone else. Those at the top of their profession tend to be very competitive. If they thought there was a problem with the theory then in the vast majority of scientists the idea would catch hold. In short, of you're a climate scientist and you want a Nobel prize - prove that humans are not warming the planet.
One of the scientists on the programme, Professor Carl Wunsch has already complained angrily about being mislead. He accepts the theory of Global warming.
So that's 8 experts in that programme against 1000's of scientists and almost all of the research in global warming related fields.
Wrong again Cobblyworld. Carl Wunsch does not accept the AGW theory. He is a sceptic of the AGW theory and your attempts to tell that he now believes in AGW theory is a false claim, much like most of the other things you claim
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Wrong again Cobblyworld. Carl Wunsch does not accept the AGW theory. He is a sceptic of the AGW theory and your attempts to tell that he now believes in AGW theory is a false claim, much like most of the other things you claim
Carl Wunsch isn't a sceptic. He believes that there are no certainties and on that basis we need to go with the "high probability" that climate-change is human-induced.
In the scientific world you would not find a sceptic the way you are defining it.
Let's get things in perspective
The fact of the matter is that our earth is getting warmer but so is the fact that is got warmer and cooler several times over the last billion of years. This fact is not contentious. What is contentious is the claim this time around that humans are responsible. What Carl Wunsch tries to point out that it is indeed impossible scientifically to establish this argument
Originally posted by What's in your mind: The fact of the matter is that our earth is getting warmer but so is the fact that is got warmer and cooler several times over the last billion of years. This fact is not contentious. What is contentious is the claim this time around that humans are responsible. What Carl Wunsch tries to point out that it is indeed impossible scientifically to establish this argument
I agree with you about what is contentious.
But, it is wrong to suggest Carl Wunsch points out it is impossible to scientifically establish the cause.
Strangely, you are implying a certainty about the uncertainty!
What Carl Wunsch says is: "while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever."
So Carl Wunsch is definitely saying we have no clear-cut proof now. I acknowledge Carl Wunsch is saying we may not ever know the cause.
But he certainly doesn't say it is impossible. He doesn't know if it is possible or not.
On that scientific basis he believes we should be doing what we can on the probability that climate change is human-induced.
So you acknowledge the uncertainty in the science and that's the main contribution of Carl Wunsch to the program. Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming. Cosmic Ray theorists do. They claim that Cosmic ray theory is a better explanation of GW than AGW. We can acknowledge the reasonable arguments that Carl Wunsch make in his piece without automatically agreeing with his comment that we should then go for probabilities, especially when there is an alternate theory which tries to explain the phenomenon without having human made carbon as part the causal mechanism
Originally posted by What's in your mind: So you acknowledge the uncertainty in the science and that's the main contribution of Carl Wunsch to the program. Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming. Cosmic Ray theorists do. They claim that Cosmic ray theory is a better explanation of GW than AGW. We can acknowledge the reasonable arguments that Carl Wunsch make in his piece without automatically agreeing with his comment that we should then go for probabilities, especially when there is an alternate theory which tries to explain the phenomenon without having human made carbon as part the causal mechanism
Yes I acknowledge uncertainty. The IPCC acknowledge the uncertainty. Because in complex science, we rely on probabilities. But the probability that climate change is human-induced is very high.
Because of what is at stake, it is vital we go with the vast majority of scientists and try to reduce our carbon emissions.
Carl Wunsch himself has complained about being misrepresented and says he wouldn't have agreed to contribute had he known the nature of the documentary, so therefore we can't take what he says in the documentary as representative of his views.
Whereas what he writes in the Royal Society is unedited and we can assume that it represents his views.
It is not a question of choosing a favourite cause. It is a case of probable causes, in which case the influence of cosmic rays is probably less influential than human carbon-emmissions.
Carl Wunsch does not comment on relative probability of cosmic ray theory and AGW theory, he says most scientists (in the AGW camp) would assign a high probability to human made carbon as the likely source of Global Warming. Lets keep honest and try not to twist words
Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}
So we have the IPCC telling us we have a problem, and Carl Wunsch telling us that public policy has to be made on probabilities, what more do we need? If every member of the general public has to sign off on the science before we can act ... we are doomed.
Typical of the AGW theory brigade- over reliance on cut and paste stuff, imagining that gives an air of credibility while posting on the forum
As I said earlier, Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming. Cosmic ray theorists do. It is not sufficient only to point out the problems with AGW theory, which Carl Wunsch does, but it is important in science to come up with alternate explanations that explain the phenemeneon better, and this is what Cosmic Ray theorists are trying to do.
We dont have to go with probabilities just because Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Typical of the AGW theory brigade- over reliance on cut and paste stuff, imagining that gives an air of credibility while posting on the forum
- referencing of existing material should not be a problem, it helps to stabilise the discussion on reality. Too much of the discussion is just opinions. An example from this morning was an individual who claimed volcanoes produced more CO2 than humans (as claimed on the TV programme), and then had to admit he had found it was not true.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: As I said earlier, Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming. Cosmic ray theorists do.
- they think they do. But they present graphs missing the last 20 years!
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: It is not sufficient only to point out the problems with AGW theory, which Carl Wunsch does, but it is important in science to come up with alternate explanations that explain the phenemeneon better, and this is what Cosmic Ray theorists are trying to do.
- I'm all for everyone helping. But it doesn't help if they present old science without admitting that it is old and that the new understanding blows them out of the water.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: We dont have to go with probabilities just because Carl Wunsch does not have an alternate explanation of Global Warming
- excellent spin. We do have to go with probabilities if that is all we have and a clock is ticking...
Can the AWG theory brigade make their point without relying on cut and paste? I guess not.
It is no good dismissing peer reviewed science on cosmic ray theory as outdated and old science and accepting the same peer reviews science on AGW theory as the holy grail of truth
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Can the AWG theory brigade make their point without relying on cut and paste? I guess not.
It is no good dismissing peer reviewed science on cosmic ray theory as outdated and old science and accepting the same peer reviews science on AGW theory as the holy grail of truth
Tell you what old bean.
We'll go on refering to our supporting evidence and making our reasoning as transparent as possible.
So Cobblyworld think cut and paste is presenting supporting evidence and making reasoning transparent as possible. Hmmm.... now what is it that smells fishy?
Originally posted by climateconfused: I enjoyed the documentary aired recently on C4. I was left feeling somewhat confused by the whole debate.
Speaking as someone who previously blindly accepted the majority opinion that C02 was the main contributor to global warming i'm now not sure what to believe.
Is there someone who can confirm the position.
The contributors in the program spoke of scientific 'Fact' ie that the evidence from core samples disproves the notion that we as human beings are contributing to global warming, is this not the case? Surely the core samples are not open to interpretation (or is that me being naive?)
Of course we can argue all day about which body is funding which argument, that governments seek to top up lost tax revenue with other tax generators..
... but isn't science all about facts?
Can anyone recommend any reading to substantiate the argument for and against the positions proposed in the C4 doc?
Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Cobblyworld You are obviously very well read on this subject but everything you have quoted is a theory or a hypothesis based on models that cannot be verified based on chaotic systems - it is not science fact!
There are alternate views to the debate which you must consider in the absence of firm facts.
What is absolutely wrong is the way this topic is being drummed into such a political tool. The vast majority belive what they are being told by their governments and what worries me the most is that it will be used [by governments] as a stick [in the form of punitive taxation] to stifle industrial innovation (the very thing that will find solutions to our problems, if they truly exist).
Originally posted by 18moglet: Cobblyworld You are obviously very well read on this subject but everything you have quoted is a theory or a hypothesis based on models that cannot be verified based on chaotic systems - it is not science fact!
- see the comment by Carl Wunsch on the Royal Society site.
quote:
Originally posted by 18moglet: There are alternate views to the debate which you must consider in the absence of firm facts.
- alternate views have been considered and been found wanting, eg. cosmic rays in the previous IPCC report.
quote:
Originally posted by 18moglet: What is absolutely wrong is the way this topic is being drummed into such a political tool. The vast majority belive what they are being told by their governments and what worries me the most is that it will be used [by governments] as a stick [in the form of punitive taxation] to stifle industrial innovation (the very thing that will find solutions to our problems, if they truly exist).
- industrial innovation can actually be encouraged to deal with the problem.
Policy of response of the 'Cut and Paste' brigade. Quote from your entry and then add a line that means nothing and then feel self important about yourself
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Policy of response of the 'Cut and Paste' brigade. Quote from your entry and then add a line that means nothing and then feel self important about yourself
Wordsmithy, You quote as many scientists, journals, reports and/or articles you like the fact remains this is an unproven theory that has been turned into a political scare tool.
The historical data alone should be enough for any sensible person to seriously consider the current situation and what is causing the current temperature profile.
what initiatives are currently available to deal with the "problem" other than punitive taxation?
You are obviously very well read on this subject but everything you have quoted is a theory or a hypothesis based on models that cannot be verified based on chaotic systems - it is not science fact!
There are alternate views to the debate which you must consider in the absence of firm facts.
The models they used in the late 1980's did a pretty good job of assessing the warming that has happened since (see the first IPCC report). After Pinatubo erupted, a climate model was run to estimate the likely global cooling effect of the dust and sulphates, and was very accurate. Models running now are much more complex, and accurately model most of the climate and weather phenomena of earth.
There is no such thing as scientific "fact". Nevertheless the scientific process has been pretty good at getting human knowledge advanced. Scientific process is base
