Panel affirms rising Earth temperature

[bizorky]

What I am trying to get at is that scientists themselves can actually thwart debate when it becomes politically charged. This would not be the first time in history. One can understand the emotional context, but it should never get in the way of the research.

The nature of atmospheric and climate research is quite complex. Your quote by Micheal Mann is one point of view, and not an absolute consensus. Science is not done by taking a poll.

I don't see what's so dishonest about saying increased CO2 is likely warming the planet. Air pollution is another issue.

The two are one and the same.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

bizorky:

Climate change is as old as the planet because the planet is active. Period. The difficulty is in attempting to separate out human contributions and effects from naturally occuring processes. This difficulty is further compounded by not having any fine data concerning climate variability in the past. This is a serious problem. But it does not mean that human beings are not having a negative impact on the environment.

Indeed, there are indications that activity as a result of agriculture had released enough methane in the atmosphere to allow the planet to stay within the interglacial period. That said, the lack of understanding on our part makes it all the more imperative that we don't take actions with effects we can't predict, with a high likelihood of causing displacements in the current state of human affairs.

With respect to the issue of carbon dioxide, far too many popular press articles make carbon emissions stand alone. Carbon dioxide in the air is not at all deadly with respect to the typical quantities found in the atmosphere. Yet most of the sources of those emissions are also the causes of considerable pollutants, and have been so for a very long time. It might be time to stop making carbon stand out alone and wrap it up into air pollution issues as a complete package. It might make things more complicated, but at least it would be more honest.

Actually I would NOT make such a connection, for the reasons that other pollutants (SOx, NOx, ozone, particulates) have effects that are either more local and/or resembling traditional pollutants. Greenhouses gases with long dwell times affect climatic mechanisms while by themselves creating little to no local effects. Policies aimed at dealing with the former can differs wildly from the latter.

AoD

 

[bizorky]

Alvin,

That said, the lack of understanding on our part makes it all the more imperative that we don't take actions with effects we can't predict, with a high likelihood of causing displacements in the current state of human affairs.

I have stated here, and in other posts on this topic, that there is nothing wrong with taking careful steps to reducing greenhouse emissions - even in light of not having a full understanding of the complexity of the atmosphere and climate change processes.

Actually I would NOT make such a connection, for the reasons that other pollutants (SOx, NOx, ozone, particulates) have effects that are either more local and/or resembling traditional pollutants. Greenhouses gases with long dwell times affect climatic mechanisms while by themselves creating little to no local effects. Policies aimed at dealing with the former can differs wildly from the latter.

The emissions you indicate have varying residence times in the general environment. I suggest linking them together as, for example, low level ozone is hardly beneficial regardless of how local it is or how short it resides in the lower atmosphere during the day. Also, SOx and NOx contribute to acid rain which does have long lasting environmental effects. Heavy metal emissions, including mercury, do make their way into water. Other emissions have found their way to the arctic.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 belong to the larger natural carbon cycle that has existed on the planet for billions of years. Carbon dioxide is not toxic in the the levels in which it appears in the atmosphere (whether elevated or not). Excess local concentrations NOx, ozone, heavy metals and so on (generated from the same sources as CO2 emissions) pose immediate problems that can be measured of clear negative effects. For that reason I suggest linking them together in terms of a comprehensive environmental policy framework.

 

[bizorky]

ganja,

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with this paragraph. The only people trying to shut up scientists are the neo-cons and oil execs who have a stake in all this. The belief in global warming caused by man is nearly unanimous in the scientific world, though you wouldn't get that impression by reading the lay press.

What I am getting at is the notion that dissenting scientists are accused of being neo-cons or pro-oil hacks. Global warming is now a politically charged issue, and scientific dissenters ought not to be suppressed on the basis of political name-calling. Science deserves an open atmosphere for engaging in reasoned debate where all evidence is examined equally. Sadly, even within the history of science, there have been times when minority views were not given the same respect as a the majority point of view, solely because they were held by a minority.

Your statement that the belief that global warming is caused by man being unanimous is wrong. The scientific evidence shows numerous warming and cooling periods throughout planetary history. Many of these periods are not well understood. Since human beings were not around for most of that history, one has to conclude that there are other things at work. These causes may be at work today.

Mann agreed, and said it would be "shortsighted to talk only about C02."

"It is extremely misleading, however, when scientists cite the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas," Mann explained. "The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere can not be controlled by us directly. It is fixed by the surface temperature of the Earth."

Interesting quote, but it does not address the fact water vapour is a very significant cause of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Nor does it mention the fact that the role of cloud cover is not clearly understood: do clouds reflect or trap heat more efficiently? What is misleading is to focus almost exclusively on carbon dioxide without considering other atmospheric, oceanic or geological conditions. CO2 emissions have to be understood in context, and the context happens to be the extremely complex atmosphere which envelops a planet that plays a direct role in the heating and cooling trends of that atmosphere.

"There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate."
Lancet. 2006 Mar 11;367(9513):859-69.

Should I presume that is an editorial comment? And the Lancet is a medical journal, is it not?

I don't see what's so dishonest about saying increased CO2 is likely warming the planet. Air pollution is another issue.

No, science isn't perfect, but when there's near unanimous agreement in the theory of global warming in the scientific community and most of the bickering is coming from Republicans and oil men, guess where I put my money.

Has anyone said that it is dishonest to say CO2 is warming the planet? The question is: to what effect? Do we just happen to be living in a period of warming? Are we adding to an already existing warming trend? Are we for certain that we are doing all the warming when there is an extremely long history of variable climate? The debate I am speaking to is not between scientists and Rush Limbaugh, but between scientists from many fields, and near unanimous agreement should not be confused with unanimous agreement. Particularly when the field of study is so new, and the topic of study is so complex.

 

[Archivistower]

bizorky, you're wrong. In fact, there is an established consensus, imperfect as it is.

The embattled scientists speaking up for other points of view are funded by industries that want a dissenting scientific voice. It's a common tactic.

 

[ganjavih]

Archivist is correct, bizorky, you are simply wrong on this issue. I've been following this issue for years in the scientific press, not the lay press, and the debate is over in the scientific world... it has been for a while. The issues being discussed now are what the precise impacts of global warming will be, not whether it exists or not. Any doubts that exist in the general public are due to disinformation campaigns from people and groups that have something to lose (When It Comes to Global Warming, What Do You Believe?). It was the same story when cigarettes were first connected to lung cancer... and the tobacco industry still claims that smoking is healthy or harmless. If people continue to doubt data in prestigious peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Lancet, the lobbyists are doing a good job. Don't believe the hype.

 

[bizorky]

bizorky, you're wrong. In fact, there is an established consensus, imperfect as it is.

I am simply wrong? About what? It's easy to say someone is wrong, but you have to be a little more clear about what. Your assertion is without reference, and noteworthy only for its blandness.

Note a couple of items. Many of the scientists involved in the "consensus" are not even climatologists or in atmospheric research. They may be, for example, wildlife biologists looking at local environmental changes and saying "yup, it's warmer this year." They would be contributing to the consensus, but only by way of a vote, and not by way of supporting data. You should consider reading these things more closely. There are a number of climatologists who seriously question the assertions of this "consensus" because the data is not irrefutable.

Am I wrong about pointing out that climate has been variable over the history of the planet? Have I been wrong in pointing out that temperature variation has been happening over the past few hundreds of years? Am I incorrect in noting that scientists directly involved in the germain fields of study point out that they are not sure as to all the causes?

Is climatology a completed field of study? Is it over? Finished? No more grants being handed out? If there is ongoing research in the field then research is ongoing; its hardly finished. The debates are all ongoing; it is you who is in error for thinking all is said and done.

In science, all knowledge is tentative. Always. Questioning data and assertions are the life blood of the endevour, and committing yourself to a "belief," as you both appear to do, blinds you to the fact that the story is not anywhere as complete as you "believe" it to be. Scientific knowledge changes all the time. You need only to look at history for this blindingly obvious fact.

Ganja, believe it or not, other people can be following the topic for years as well. As for not believing all the hype, maybe you should consider that piece of advice yourself.

 

[ganjavih]

I am simply wrong? About what? It's easy to say someone is wrong, but you have to be a little more clear about what. Your assertion is without reference, and noteworthy only for its blandness.

A number of citations were provided from top peer-reviewed journals indicating that the scientific community has reached a consensus. Where's your evidence that scientists are still debating whether global warming is real or not?

Am I wrong about pointing out that climate has been variable over the history of the planet? Have I been wrong in pointing out that temperature variation has been happening over the past few hundreds of years? Am I incorrect in noting that scientists directly involved in the germain fields of study point out that they are not sure as to all the causes?

As of today, the answer to the question, "are greenhouse gases generated by human activity changing the climate?" is yes. I don't care about the other questions you bring up. The answer to this specific question is yes.

Is climatology a completed field of study? Is it over? Finished? No more grants being handed out?

I don't know why you are bringing these up... either because you're confused about the subject or deliberately trying to confuse the subject. So I'll say it again: As of today, the answer to the question, "are greenhouse gases generated by human activity changing the climate?" is yes. Yes, there are more questions that need to be answered, and yes, grants continue to be given to answer these questions.

If there is ongoing research in the field then research is ongoing; its hardly finished. The debates are all ongoing; it is you who is in error for thinking all is said and done.

Citations?

In science, all knowledge is tentative. Always. Questioning data and assertions are the life blood of the endevour, and committing yourself to a "belief," as you both appear to do, blinds you to the fact that the story is not anywhere as complete as you "believe" it to be.

Again, you're confusing some concepts. I didn't say that I know for sure that global warming is happening, I said the consensus within the scientific community is that it is happening. Do we know 100% for sure that global warming is real? No. Is the consensus within the scientific community that global warming is real? Yes. And since I am trained in and believe in science, for the time being I believe it until otherwise proven.

Scientific knowledge changes all the time. You need only to look at history for this blindingly obvious fact.

Ganja, believe it or not, other people can be following the topic for years as well. As for not believing all the hype, maybe you should consider that piece of advice yourself.

As someone who has spent years learning how to formulate questions, designing experiments to answer them, interpreting scientific data, assessing the quality of research and publishing scientific data, I am well aware, thank you. I will continue to believe the Earth is round until someone proves it's wrong. If science proves it wrong, I am willing to change my belief.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

So how much of the warming is due to humans and how much is natural? That's the whole point.

 

[bizorky]

^Yes, one of a number of very interesting questions, but then again, be aware of the point of view as outlined above:

I don't care about the other questions you bring up.

 

[ganjavih]

In science, you learn how to ask a specific question and answer it specifically.

If you make the claim that we are unsure about the exact contribution man has made to climate change, you may get away with it. If in a thesis defence, you claim that scientists are still debating whether man has contributed to climate change, they'll flunk your ass.

 

[andreapalladio]

Am I wrong about pointing out that climate has been variable over the history of the planet? Have I been wrong in pointing out that temperature variation has been happening over the past few hundreds of years? Am I incorrect in noting that scientists directly involved in the germain fields of study point out that they are not sure as to all the causes?

No. No. Yes.

The lie that there is no scientific consensus as to the fact, and the causes, of global warming is spread by, and on behalf of, the automotive, coal and oil industries and their supporters. It's been avery effectively campaign. If it's not being used as a case study in PR classes, it should be.

 

[bizorky]

If you make the claim that we are unsure about the exact contribution man has made to climate change, you may get away with it. If in a thesis defence, you claim that scientists are still debating whether man has contributed to climate change, they'll flunk your ass.

The lie that there is no scientific consensus as to the fact, and the causes, of global warming is spread by, and on behalf of, the automotive, coal and oil industries and their supporters. It's been avery effectively campaign. If it's not being used as a case study in PR classes, it should be.

Well, I am not making a thesis defence here, am I? I am asking questions, pointing out some facts and stating some opinions on those facts. That's all.

A consensus is an agreement among a majority of like-minded individuals, but not all individuals. A consensus is not necessarily a unanimity of opinion. Note that the original article posted at the start of this thread made reference to a debate (even if done so in a perjorative manner). I would presume that a debate exists because there are still a number of questions being asked by a number of scientists concerning the data. The fact that they are not a majority should not matter so much as the fact that questions are being asked. If they are sound questions, they deserve respect.

Sadly, it becomes all to easy in charged debates such as this to throw the crackpots together with those individuals asking reasonable questions. This is unfortunate, not particulalrly helpful and hardly a reasonable approach to clarifying understanding.

So how much of the warming is due to humans and how much is natural?

Still an interesting question, in my opinion - regardless of who it pisses off.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The lie that there is no scientific consensus as to the fact, and the causes, of global warming is spread by, and on behalf of, the automotive, coal and oil industries and their supporters.

Odd...I could have sworn that guy who wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist" worked for the Danish government. Maybe Denmark is owned by oil companies...

Kevin

 

[ganjavih]

Denmark doesn't need to be owned by oil company for an environmentalist to write a book. It's a free country. Consensus doesn't mean every man, woman and child must have the same opinion.