The Climate Change Thread

[ganjavih]

No, I meant Charles Keller in:

Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications
Authors: Keller, Charles F.
Journal: TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
Year: 2007
Volume: 7
Page Range: 381-399
Article Type: Review Article
Handling Editor: Howard P. Hanson

 

[Hydrogen]

You're getting hung up on the way I phrased it. Just because I said climate change that doesn't mean that someone reviewing work on the subject uses that as a search term. The rest of this really has no relevance. It's all straw man arguments.

You were inaccurate and wished to treat the word "consensus" in a vacuum. I've shown how the phrase "climate change" has been used outside of what you claimed was a fixed anthropogenic context. That is not a strawman argument. It counters your assertion that all climate change articles refer exclusively to human activity.

Again, we've been through this. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Yes, you have repeated yourself, but never actually answered.

Nobody has ever disputed that there are natural variations in climate. This isn't new information. Of course work that studies what's causing global warming is going to examine the link with human activity, that's the whole point. It's not some blind assumption that there's a link, it's been supported by the vast majority of work done on the subject. And of course it's been compared to the natural climate variations in the past and present. Why would you think it hasn't?

You are not a very perceptive reader, are you? Your last question is the one you should be asking yourself as it goes against the main thrust of your own argument. There is still is a clear possibility that recent changes in the average global temperature are the product of natural variability. This possibility has not been eliminated - regardless of the degree of beliefs concerning a consensus over human effects.

If you read documents such as the IPCC AFAR 2007 you can find that even the most ardent supporters claiming anthropogenic effects on climate have extreme difficulty in separating natural climate variation from supposed human effects (they actually can't). This remains a major problem and relates directly to assertions concerning a consensus since a consensus still tells nothing of the degree of asserted human effect. As such, many consensus claims (not all) in the literature are expressed in suggestive language, not phrased irrefutable facts as you have claimed.

No, it just points out a fact.

You failed to point out how your original assertion is a fact. You do so yet again.

Looks like you've taken up Ganjavih's challenge to find a review in a peer reviewed journal that disputes the consensus on global warming. Looks like you haven't found one.

There are still many peer review articles being published that discuss climate change outside of claims of an exclusive human effects to this day. The ones that discuss issues of human effects are, of course, going to be discussing the supposed human effects. Are all articles in the literature review that utilize the phrase climate change, or discussing global climate, relating directly to just human effects? No. But of those discussing human effects, are their collective assertions all positive when considering human effects, or is the language suggestive, indicating a possibility? You would have to survey them all to know for sure. Once again, the banal use of the word "consensus" tells nothing of degree, depth or range of possible human effects.

 

[Hydrogen]

No, I meant Charles Keller in:

Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications
Authors: Keller, Charles F.
Journal: TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
Year: 2007
Volume: 7
Page Range: 381-399
Article Type: Review Article
Handling Editor: Howard P. Hanson

Thanks you.

Unfortunately the author is appears to be mixing up many arguments in his attempts to refute what he refers to as skeptics. When people suggest that the present warming is not unusual, they are not suggesting that there is no warming. Based on proxy measurements, present warming trends fall well into the typical temperature variations seen over the mean of the past 5,000 years. As for stating that the last twenty-five years have been warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature assessments are being taken from two different sources. Also, MSU satellite measurements show no significant warming in globally averaged temperatures over the last eight years - regardless of increased atmospheric C02 content.

 

[ganjavih]

This remains a major problem and relates directly to assertions concerning a consensus since a consensus still tells nothing of the degree of asserted human effect.

Two separate issues:

1. Does human activity contribute to climate change?
2. How much does human activity contribute to climate change?

I have said that there is a consensus regarding #1, I've never made any claims regarding #2.

Like many phenomena in the natural sciences, the aetiology is multifactorial. For example, people get cancer because of a combination of biological (ie. an inherited gene mutation) and environmental (ie. exposure to radiation) reasons. No self-respecting scientist would claim that recent increasing temperatures is only caused by human activity. There is a general consensus that human activity is a factor in the temperature rise, but how much of a factor and what the consequences will be are still being debated.

As for the technicalities of the research, such as MSU temperature readings, I'll leave that to the experts as it's beyond my expertise. The point is, you don't have to be an expert in a particular field to do a literature review on that topic. I can still review the current literature on cold fusion to see what the current thinking is without being a physicist.

Science evolves over time and maybe new data will refute the current belief. But for now, there is a consensus that human activity contributes to climate change.

 

[MisterF]

You were inaccurate and wished to treat the word "consensus" in a vacuum. I've shown how the phrase "climate change" has been used outside of what you claimed was a fixed anthropogenic context. That is not a strawman argument.

Are all articles in the literature review that utilize the phrase climate change, or discussing global climate, relating directly to just human effects? No.

You keep getting hung up on the phrase "climate change". It doesn't matter what we call it in a lay person's debate, that has nothing to do with what search terms and phrases are actually used. What matters is the results that those terms get. You're trying to steer the debate into proving that nobody knows just how much of a role natural cycles play, when nobody's arguing that.

It counters your assertion that all climate change articles refer exclusively to human activity.

I didn't make this assertion.

Yes, you have repeated yourself, but never actually answered.

Yes I did. You questioned why scientific bodies whose members include scientists not studying climate change would support the consensus on if humans are causing it. I answered in post 53, 1st paragraph and clarified in post 56, 1st paragraph.

You are not a very perceptive reader, are you? Your last question is the one you should be asking yourself as it goes against the main thrust of your own argument. There is still is a clear possibility that recent changes in the average global temperature are the product of natural variability. This possibility has not been eliminated - regardless of the degree of beliefs concerning a consensus over human effects.

If you read documents such as the IPCC AFAR 2007 you can find that even the most ardent supporters claiming anthropogenic effects on climate have extreme difficulty in separating natural climate variation from supposed human effects (they actually can't). This remains a major problem and relates directly to assertions concerning a consensus since a consensus still tells nothing of the degree of asserted human effect. As such, many consensus claims (not all) in the literature are expressed in suggestive language, not phrased irrefutable facts as you have claimed.

You failed to point out how your original assertion is a fact. You do so yet again.

There are still many peer review articles being published that discuss climate change outside of claims of an exclusive human effects to this day. The ones that discuss issues of human effects are, of course, going to be discussing the supposed human effects. But of those discussing human effects, are their collective assertions all positive when considering human effects, or is the language suggestive, indicating a possibility? You would have to survey them all to know for sure. Once again, the banal use of the word "consensus" tells nothing of degree, depth or range of possible human effects.

I've never denied that natural varaibility has always, and will always, have a role to play. You're creating a debate where none exists. The consensus is that humans are contributing to global warming, not that we're the only cause. Or that we know every detail about degree, depth, etc.

 

[Hydrogen]

You keep getting hung up on the phrase "climate change"

That's the topic of discussion, isn't it?

I've never denied that natural varaibility has always, and will always, have a role to play. You're creating a debate where none exists. The consensus is that humans are contributing to global warming, not that we're the only cause. Or that we know every detail about degree, depth, etc.

That debate has existed long before I mentioned it. You would have noted this had you actually read some the papers that have been published. Without clear knowledge of the natural variability of climate there is no way to ascertain human effects on climate.

Human being could easily have contributed to "global warming" by misreading the data that presupposes it.

 

[MisterF]

That's the topic of discussion, isn't it?

No it isn't. At all. The terminology you and I use in daily conversation is meaningless to the work that's being done.

That debate has existed long before I mentioned it. You would have noted this had you actually read some the papers that have been published. Without clear knowledge of the natural variability of climate there is no way to ascertain human effects on climate.

Human being could easily have contributed to "global warming" by misreading the data that presupposes it.

No, there's no debate on whether or not there's natural variation in climate. There is, we know that. And the vast majority of the science tells us that humans are affecting the climate as well. The more research is done, the more we know about the details.

 

[Hydrogen]

No it isn't. At all. The terminology you and I use in daily conversation is meaningless to the work that's being done.

The topic of this thread includes the words "climate change." As to the rest of what you have stated, it is meaningless (or you simply don't know what you mean).

 

[MisterF]

The topic of this thread includes the words "climate change." As to the rest of what you have stated, it is meaningless (or you simply don't know what you mean).

It doesn't matter what the words in the thread title are. They could be "climate change" or "global warming" or "we're heating up the earth" - we'd still be talking about the same thing. Are you arguing that when a search comes up with some results that aren't relevant to the search, that invalidates the review of the ones that are?

 

[Hydrogen]

It doesn't matter what the words in the thread title are. They could be "climate change" or "global warming" or "we're heating up the earth" - we'd still be talking about the same thing. Are you arguing that when a search comes up with some results that aren't relevant to the search, that invalidates the review of the ones that are?

Rather than trying to imagine that you know what my arguments are, try spend a little more time to state yours more clearly.

There have been many research references to climate change that had (and still have) nothing to do with proving, disproving or accepting human involvement. As I pointed out earlier, before the two words became popularly synonymous with human activity by way of excessive repetition, climate change meant just that: changes to climate - either locally or globally.

You appear to characterize the body of research to be an entrenched debate between those who assert that humans cause climate change (or global warming) and those who don't. It is not like that. Moreover, there are papers that acknowledge the potential of a human effect, but do so only to note that this has been stated as one of the potential causes. In other words, the authors acknowledge the assertion, but do not argue either for or against such a position. Furthermore, papers on climate change relating to solar irradiance, cosmic rays, solar cycle length, solar-atmospheric interaction and the like rarely make references to the potential human effects. These and other papers like them are presenting specific studies on certain phenomena, not handling a running commentary between two isolated positions concerning anthropogenic contribution.

Certainly, any one of a number of natural phenomena that could potentially explain the approximate 0.6C rise in globally-averaged temperature over the last 100 years would invalidate the argument for human involvement.

No, there's no debate on whether or not there's natural variation in climate. There is, we know that. And the vast majority of the science tells us that humans are affecting the climate as well. The more research is done, the more we know about the details.

Over $50 billion has been spent on climate research over the last twenty years. There is still no general theory of climate, and certainly no high degree of scientific understanding with respect to the complexity and effects of natural climate drivers. There is also no agreement on how to distinguish or measure natural climate change from the asserted human effects. It's a big problem of nescience.

So when a word like "consensus" is invoked, it is very much a glittering generality: the associating of something with a supposed virtuous connotation (in this case, an assertion of common agreement among people in-the-know). The purpose of invoking and repeating such a generalization is to generate acceptance and approval of something without examining all the evidence - or actually finalizing the evidence. Such generalities can mean different things to different people and can be used in many different ways. It tells of agreement, but offers little in the way of the qualities of that agreement. It becomes little more than a means of persuasion and manipulation.

 

[ganjavih]

Certainly, any one of a number of natural phenomena that could potentially explain the approximate 0.6C rise in globally-averaged temperature over the last 100 years would invalidate the argument for human involvement.

But there's hardly any literature (other than in the lay press) suggesting the rise in temperature is solely due to natural phenomena. Again, that's why we do literature reviews... to get a sense of the body of research as a whole and to avoid the bias of reading one or two primary studies out of the hundreds out there.

There is still no general theory of climate, and certainly no high degree of scientific understanding with respect to the complexity and effects of natural climate drivers.

There are a lot of natural phenomena we do not fully understand. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to answer specific questions around the topic.

There is also no agreement on how to distinguish or measure natural climate change from the asserted human effects. It's a big problem of nescience.

But there is an agreement that human effects are real, regardless of the measures used.

So when a word like "consensus" is invoked, it is very much a glittering generality.

There's nothing "glittering" about reviewing the research and compiling the opinions of scientists who are studying the matter. If you review the literature on whether smoking marijuana causes schizophrenia or whether power lines cause cancer, there is no consensus... studies show conflicting results... still very much debatable. However, the vast majority of research indicates that humans affect climate. Hence the term, "consensus".

The purpose of invoking and repeating such a generalization is to generate acceptance and approval of something without examining all the evidence - or actually finalizing the evidence.

The purpose is to educate the public that the science seems to indicate one thing while the oil lobby is telling us something else. And we've already talked a lot about how we "examine the evidence" in science, so we don't need to go through that again. Also, there is no "finalising the evidence" concept in science. Theories evolve as more evidence is collected. Perhaps in the future, there will be more evidence that humans do not affect climate, but for now, scientists believe we do.

Such generalities can mean different things to different people and can be used in many different ways.

They are not generalities, they are systematic reviews of the evidence in the scientific literature.

It tells of agreement, but offers little in the way of the qualities of that agreement. It becomes little more than a means of persuasion and manipulation.

You began by asserting there is no consensus. Now that you've been shown there is a consensus, you're suggesting that climate researchers are purposefully trying to persuade and manipulate us?

 

[Hydrogen]

But there's hardly any literature (other than in the lay press) suggesting the rise in temperature is solely due to natural phenomena. Again, that's why we do literature reviews... to get a sense of the body of research as a whole and to avoid the bias of reading one or two primary studies out of the hundreds out there.

What do you mean by "hardly?" There is little in the literature to show how to actually distinguish what is a natural signal from what is potentially a human signal with respect to temperature change. And by hundreds of studies, should I assume you have read these hundreds of studies to know whether a reference to anthropogenic causes is just being cited, or whether each paper actually provides direct evidence of proof for such an assertion? The preceding proxy estimates for temperature rise before 1850 were in the 0.5C range - not much different from the often mentioned 0.6C range of the last 100 years.

There are a lot of natural phenomena we do not fully understand. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to answer specific questions around the topic.

Nobody has argued for stopping research, so you need not worry about that. Spending on climate research is at an all-time high. The fact that the natural phenomena of climate are not well understood ought to be telling as human effects are extremely weak when compared to the combined effects of natural climate drivers.

But there is an agreement that human effects are real, regardless of the measures used.

Which could mean many things - such as the human effect is minimal - as in a tiny fraction of what is being measured. Also, natural phenomena have not taken a holiday, have they? The longer term global climate trend has been one in which there has been a movement out of the cooler Little Ice Age period - which precedes any human impact.

The recording of a human signal on climate could also mean that the "human effect" is an artifact of a questionable history of poor temperature record keeping. There are many ways to take an average surface air temperature over the area the size of a planet, and each could provide a different result.

As I have pointed out, the agreement in the literature review could be an agreement that there is an agreement. People are citing a reference, not actually arguing for or against something. The language employed may be suggestive rather than clearly supportive, asserting a possibility and not an actuality. There is a difference.

There's nothing "glittering" about reviewing the research and compiling the opinions of scientists who are studying the matter. If you review the literature on whether smoking marijuana causes schizophrenia or whether power lines cause cancer, there is no consensus... studies show conflicting results... still very much debatable. However, the vast majority of research indicates that humans affect climate. Hence the term, "consensus"

How do human beings affect the climate? What are these effects? How are these effects manifested in the climate specifically? How extensive is the impact? To what degree? How is the impact measured? By what methods? Are there natural phenomena that could account for these assumed effects? Does the history of natural climate change exhibit a pattern that suggests that present-day changes are typical or untypical? What are the range of effects of these natural phenomena? How is the human effect to be distinguished from the natural effect? Can this be done with any accuracy?

There is everything glittering about the generality concerning a consensus with respect to the review you focus on - as that review tells nothing about the nature, depth, extent, degree or association to the content of that supposed consensus. The so-called consensus largely makes reference to a potential. Nothing more.

The purpose is to educate the public that the science seems to indicate one thing while the oil lobby is telling us something else. And we've already talked a lot about how we "examine the evidence" in science, so we don't need to go through that again. Also, there is no "finalising the evidence" concept in science. Theories evolve as more evidence is collected. Perhaps in the future, there will be more evidence that humans do not affect climate, but for now, scientists believe we do.

The oil lobby? So anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" gets slagged as a recepient of oil money? Got a published consensus for that one, too? As to speaking about examining evidence, there are differences from one field of inquiry to another, isn't there? Medical research is not just like climate research in terms of content, approach or what constitutes clear evidence.

But going back to the oil companies for a moment, even studies funded by these companies deserve to be measured on the scientific merits of their research, and should not automatically be impugned as false because of the source of funding. A sizable portion of geophysical research is funded by oil companies, and there are peer-reviewed journals for the petroleum geology field.

As for educating the public, what do you mean? Educating the public is a rather broad statement. Educate them about what specifically? Simply repeating the word "consensus" readily falls into the category of a glittering generality for all the previously mentioned reasons. It is a "virtue" word that makes reference to a supposed state of understanding that most of the public does not quite understand. The word "consensus" is utilized as a means of persuasion; it is being used as a substitute for public understanding.

You began by asserting there is no consensus. Now that you've been shown there is a consensus, you're suggesting that climate researchers are purposefully trying to persuade and manipulate us?

You've moved from scientific community as a whole to climate researchers. Can you show that all climate researchers support this consensus position? Moreover, have all climatologists published on climate change specifically for you to know what the state of that field of research is? You presume too much. Of those who do, can you show that they support it equally? I can tell you from experience that there is a considerable degree of difference among those who support the idea of a human impact on climate. A stated consensus is the lowest level of agreement among those who share it.

 

[Hydrogen]

Concerning the review article.

Keller C F, 2007. Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL, 7: 381-399.

I have read the article and, quite frankly, you would be better off citing the IPCC AFAR 2007 as the most comprehensive literature survey concerning asserted anthropogenic causes for climate change. It is considered the gold standard to that end, running over 1,000 pages in length. Compared to that, the article by Keller can hardly be considered as a comprehensive literature review. In fact, he constantly makes reference to the IPCC AFAR.

As a review article, was it peer-reviewed? I doubt it.

 

[ganjavih]

It seems I'm having to repeat certain things over again, but I guess they're worth repeating. No, I haven't read every single primary study... I wouldn't understand them anyway. That's the point of reading reviews of the literature... to avoid the impossible task of reading every single article on a topic. And again, I leave the details of how the research was done to the experts.

How do human beings affect the climate? What are these effects? How are these effects manifested in the climate specifically? How extensive is the impact? To what degree? How is the impact measured? By what methods? Are there natural phenomena that could account for these assumed effects? Does the history of natural climate change exhibit a pattern that suggests that present-day changes are typical or untypical? What are the range of effects of these natural phenomena? How is the human effect to be distinguished from the natural effect? Can this be done with any accuracy?

Again, I'm not interested in these questions. I'm interested in the one specific question, "do humans affect climate" and research seems to indicate they do.

The oil lobby? So anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" gets slagged as a recepient of oil money? Got a published consensus for that one, too?

No, you can disagree with the consensus but you cannot disagree that there is a consensus. If you presented a review of the literature at a thesis defence and stated, "the literature shows that scientists do not agree on whether human activity contributes to climate change", your defence committee would either fail you or have a stern word with you.

As to speaking about examining evidence, there are differences from one field of inquiry to another, isn't there? Medical research is not just like climate research in terms of content, approach or what constitutes clear evidence.

Yes, and that's why I said I leave the details of how the research is performed to the experts. But certain scientific principles, such as how to review the literature on a certain topic, are universal.

Educate them about what specifically?

That science and politics give conflicting messages and you're going to have to decide who you believe.

You've moved from scientific community as a whole to climate researchers.

I haven't moved from anything. Whatever term I use, I'm referring to "people who study climate" in a broad sense. I said I wouldn't be drawn into semantic arguments.

Can you show that all climate researchers support this consensus position?

No. Reread this thread. I've explained before that not every single researcher has to agree for a consensus.

Moreover, have all climatologists published on climate change specifically for you to know what the state of that field of research is?

Why would those who have data showing that humans do not contribute to climate change choose not to publish their data?

You presume too much.

What do I presume?

Of those who do, can you show that they support it equally?

No. And I'm not interested in the degree to which they support it. That's another question.

I can tell you from experience that there is a considerable degree of difference among those who support the idea of a human impact on climate.

And? That's not the issue. I've said it several times before, but I'll say it again, the consensus is that humans contribute to climate. That's it. How much, how little, or whatever else, I'm not talking about.

And if you prefer the more comprehensive IPCC report to the Keller paper, that's fine. It also states there is a consensus as I posted earlier.

Did you happen to find a review article stating that humans don't contribute to climate change?

 

[Hydrogen]

It seems I'm having to repeat certain things over again, but I guess they're worth repeating. No, I haven't read every single primary study... I wouldn't understand them anyway. That's the point of reading reviews of the literature... to avoid the impossible task of reading every single article on a topic. And again, I leave the details of how the research was done to the experts.

As I pointed out, the literature review cited was hardly comprehensive with respect to the entire field of climatology, or the related fields that contribute to climate studies. For that reason, it can hardly be used as a means of deriving a "consensus."

Again, I'm not interested in these questions. I'm interested in the one specific question, "do humans affect climate" and research seems to indicate they do.

The research also indicates the potential for natural causes as well. But then you are not interested.

Did you happen to find a review article stating that humans don't contribute to climate change?

There are hundreds of articles describing natural climate drivers. They need not mention the supposed "consensus" concerning human contributions. Research is not framed and presented as a for or against debate between two positions. That should have been obvious.

No, you can disagree with the consensus but you cannot disagree that there is a consensus. If you presented a review of the literature at a thesis defence and stated, "the literature shows that scientists do not agree on whether human activity contributes to climate change", your defence committee would either fail you or have a stern word with you.

And if you prefer the more comprehensive IPCC report to the Keller paper, that's fine. It also states there is a consensus as I posted earlier.

The IPCC report does not use the word "consensus." It uses the word "likely."

Thanks, I've already passed my thesis examination some time ago. No stern words, either.

I said I wouldn't be drawn into semantic arguments.

That's what this is.

What do I presume?

That there is a well established consensus.