Burn Burn Burn
More proof of Global Warming
by BurnTheShips 152 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hamilcarr
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeNaomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
- A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
- S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
- See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
- J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
- National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
- American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
- American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
- See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
- The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
- This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
-
stillajwexelder
Just finished reading "Hot, flat and Crowded" by Friedman - I am not a convert , but agree with his basic premise that we all have to GREEN up and quickly.
-
-
BurnTheShips
This is the ultra-left Huffington Post folks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
BTS
-
FreeWilly
It would be nice, for once to see an AGW proponent on this site actually posses a Science degree and work in a Scientific based field before they imply others who disagree are stupid. 6o9, my education, experience and career are in Chemistry and Health Physics. Are you calling me stupid also? Do you even posses a Science degree, much less have some sort of background that would support you pompus attitude?
Let's see....CO2 concentrations continue to rise, but Global temperatures continue to fall. Hmmm. Coincidentally solar activity is also waning. Hmmmm... tink tink, tink. Oh hell with it lets just infer people who don't agree are stupid and ignor the actual trend.
Note: none of the facts below are accompanied by references. Please, reveal your ignorance and contest any you don't believe.
Fact at 380 PPM the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is near it's all time LOW. Yes LOW.
Fact 1998 was when recent temperatures peaked. We've been cooling ever since. Coincidentally Solar activity has subsided as predicted, producing cooler global temperature as predicted (shocking, I know). Some one implied "a cold day here and there" doesn't apply. HELLO does a decade?
Fact CO2 rise is a lagging after effect of global temperature rise as shown irrefutably by Vostok. It has never in atmospheric history been a climate driver. EVER.
Fact The basis for CO2 becoming a climate driver is based entirely - yes entirely - on computer climate models. Why computer models and not real world observation? See the fact above and think a little. These very modeling programs have not only failed to see our current cooling trend (in the face of increasing CO2) but have failed to predict real world historical trends with all the variables known. Computer models that have a proven failure rate over 80% of the time.
Fact for most of Earth's history our atmosphere has possessed CO2 concentration 500-1200% higher than now spanning multiple ice ages. (6o9 you may want to casually avoid this oddity)
Fact CO2 is a trace gas. Trace as in <0.04% of all atmospheric gasses. Of that 0.04% humans have added 0.008%. I defy you to explain the incredible thermodynamic properties of CO2 that cause the 0.008% change to affect climate.
Fact CO2's role as a ghg is also minor. It comprises <3% of the ghg mix.
Face it now or deny it later. You have been duped to believe an ill founded hysterical premise. Sure humans are doing bad things to the planet, but increased CO2 is not one of them - ask any tree. This has all been discussed here ad nauseum. If you want the references to any of the above do a site search first. -
-
hamilcarr
Klaus? Well, should we care about the ideas of an eurosceptic grumpy old man who enjoys licking Putin's boots embracing libertarian wishywashyism in a discussion of global warming?
Edited to add (just read on wikipedia):
He has refused to comment on Russia's unilateral reduction of oil supplies to the Czech Republic following the agreement of the Czech Government to the siting of a US radar on Czech soil. The state-influenced Russian oil company Luxoil is paying to translate, publish and promote Klaus' book on climate change.
-
BurnTheShips
It is still newsworthy.
BTS
-
besty
it seems unlikely that the AGW debate will be settled any time soon
more realistic is to decide whether digging oil and coal out the ground and burning them, chopping down forests and burning them, giving huge subsidies to corn farmers to make ethanol etc etc makes fundamental common sense
man (and some other animals) have a long track record of destroying their environment for short term gain - see tragedy of the commons.
for me the question first of all should be ' is our current western civilization sustainable and is it the ideal for developing nations to aspire to?'
0.02