Global Warming

[Jachym]

Hi guys,
global warming..... man-made? natural? myth?

Interested to know what you think

[Johnny]

Well I have no scientific knowledge on this subject, but I would be an Ostrich burying my head in the sand if I ignored the countless web articles, TV programmes, news items and even films over the concern that we are heating our planet up.

I remember David Attenborough summarising at the end of one of his natural History programmes "the population is growing at an unsustainable rate", each and everyone of us is adding to these worrying emissions. So I do agree with all the warnings from scientists, they've had the courage to push this message out and I for one am listening.

[Luc]

It is certainly no myth in my opinion, the facts show that our earth is warming up. And it is man-made, no doubt about it.
My main concern goes to the countries which have a surface below or just above sea-level.
I just moved from Hoofddorp in the Netherlands which is situated 4 meters below sea-level to Paramaribo, Suriname which is 3 meters above sea-level. When the sea-level would rise as a result of melting ice we are in those areas in big danger when no precautions are taken.

[kocher]

I do not have it very clearly.

In order to start discussing, you have to answer some interesting questions first. Global warming?:

- In how much time?
- Does it respond to a natural cycle?
- Where are temperatures measured?
- What series are we studying?

After:
- How do we demonstrate the cause of the warming?

The scientific method is based on:
- Observation: It is to apply the senses attentively to an object or to a phenomenon, to study them as they occur in reality, can be occasional or causal.
- Induction: To extract the fundamental principle of each observation or experience.
- Hypothesis: Elaborate an interim explanation of the observations or experiences and their possible causes.
- To test the hypothesis by experimentation.
- Demonstration or refutation (antithesis) of the hypothesis.
- Thesis or scientific theory.

To my knowledge, until now, no one has proven the cause of human origin as the possible cause of global warming; despite this, most of the articles begin (by the end) admitting the cause without possibility of discussion.

My doubts (increasingly greater) on this issue, does not mean that it can be mistreated to Nature. What I question is the cause that is imposed without discussion or demonstration.

[kocher]

I'm surprised; I expected a barrage of responses / protests.

This may be a good place to comment on this hot topic

[Jachym]

I have first-hand data and I see the trends quite clearly...

[kocher]

Now you've convinced me!

[dmgould]

I'm in line with kocher on this. To really analyse it correctly and scientifically one would need accurate data over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years that we just don't have. That said, I think we should definitely work toward minimizing our effects on the environment. There are current trends that show warming over specific time periods, and there are current trends showing cooling over different time periods. I just don't think we have accurate data samples over a large enough time period to draw any absolute conclusions. So, the best thing to do is for all of us to lean toward green as much as we reasonably can.

[wx_jon]

I think I can offer a unique perspective here as I work alongside some of the leading scientists studying this issue at one of the top institutions for atmospheric sciences in the world. My expertise is in weather prediction and severe weather, but I've had many discussions about climate as well. I don't usually talk much about climate, but I guess I will a little here.

kocher, I hope I can address some of your above points.

I do not have it very clearly.

In order to start discussing, you have to answer some interesting questions first. Global warming?:

- In how much time?
- Does it respond to a natural cycle?
- Where are temperatures measured?
- What series are we studying?

After:
- How do we demonstrate the cause of the warming?

- Decadal time scales (10s of years). We measure warming in ºC per decade. This is an important problem, since our natural human instincts are to protect ourselves from direct, immediate threats (like a thunderstorm), but it is harder to perceive threats a decade or two in advance.
- Think of it as a linear trend with natural cycles oscillating around the trend. The natural cycles respond to the trend, not the other way around.
- Land surface-based temperatures, upper-air balloon measurements, satellite measurements, ocean buoy measurements, deep ocean measurements... basically everywhere.
- All the above, plus historical records from ice cores, sediments, tree rings, and others. I'll link to the 5th Assessment of the IPCC, where they have detailed extensive information on what data sources are used.

- We demonstrate the cause of warming by considering our best knowledge of the physical earth-atmosphere system, and determining which physical factor(s) can produce the observed trends and correlations.

The scientific method is based on:
- Observation: It is to apply the senses attentively to an object or to a phenomenon, to study them as they occur in reality, can be occasional or causal.
- Induction: To extract the fundamental principle of each observation or experience.
- Hypothesis: Elaborate an interim explanation of the observations or experiences and their possible causes.
- To test the hypothesis by experimentation.
- Demonstration or refutation (antithesis) of the hypothesis.
- Thesis or scientific theory.

- Observation: We use extensive records of all of the physical parameters I noted earlier. The best observations indicate that, over the past few decades, global temperatures have been increasing at a rate never seen before in the modern record. We have also observed sea ice extent decrease, glacial mass reduction, sea level rise, water vapor concentration increases, and, of course, carbon dioxide increases at rates never before observed in the modern record. An important note should be attached here: these are global measures. Rates of temperature increase are not uniform across the globe. Some places, like the southeast United States, have even observed decreases in temperature (though not statistically significant). Others, like the Arctic, are warming very rapidly. There is a wealth of detailed information available in the IPCC report I linked earlier.
- Induction: Some mechanism, also unprecedented in the modern record, is likely to be an explanation for the unprecedented observations.
- Hypothesis: Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the cause of the unprecedented observations. The physical mechanism of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is certain, the emissions of such gases by anthropogenic activity is also certain, and the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is a strong indication that this is a correct cause.
- To test the hypothesis by experimentation: The limitations of the earth-atmosphere system mean that no observations of the current system can directly link anthropogenic emissions to warming (or extreme weather events). Nevertheless, state-of-the-art global climate models, designed with our best knowledge of the physical earth-atmosphere system, have been created to test the effect of varying concentrations of CO2 on the earth-atmosphere system. These simulations statistically-significantly show that future temperature increases more rapidly with higher CO2 concentrations.
- Thesis or scientific theory: Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are extremely likely responsible for the observed upward trend of global temperatures (and ocean heat content).

To my knowledge, until now, no one has proven the cause of human origin as the possible cause of global warming; despite this, most of the articles begin (by the end) admitting the cause without possibility of discussion.

My doubts (increasingly greater) on this issue, does not mean that it can be mistreated to Nature. What I question is the cause that is imposed without discussion or demonstration.

As a matter of personal curiosity, may I ask what is causing you to have increasing doubts about anthropogenic global warming?

Within the scientific community, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is considered a theory in the sense that the "theory of general relativity" is a theory (it is virtually certain). Decades of meticulous research have been devoted to the subject. Over 97% of published peer-reviewed papers argue in favor of AGW, an astonishing level of agreement. (Compare that to whether scientists agree that coffee or chocolate or even running marathons is good for health.) The physics are understood just as well as Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, or general relativity. The evidence is undeniable.

And yet, I want to be clear about something: we scientists want nothing more than to be able to say, "nothing is wrong with our climate." In the US, unlike in other countries, scientists are often accused of promoting AGW because we "have a leftist political agenda." Nothing could be further from the truth. If any scientist can produce an idea that explains the unprecedented warming in the observational record better than AGW, and that can be proven through model simulations and be reproduced, that scientist would earn a Nobel Prize. Thus far, there simply is no evidence for any other proposals (like solar cycles) that have been put forth.

I'm in line with kocher on this. To really analyse it correctly and scientifically one would need accurate data over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years that we just don't have. That said, I think we should definitely work toward minimizing our effects on the environment. There are current trends that show warming over specific time periods, and there are current trends showing cooling over different time periods. I just don't think we have accurate data samples over a large enough time period to draw any absolute conclusions. So, the best thing to do is for all of us to lean toward green as much as we reasonably can.

It would undeniably be amazing if we could have that data! Just imagine how crazy the scientists and the news media would get. But we have to work with what we do have. And it turns out that what we do have is a lot more than many people realize.

I'm glad though that your conclusion is that we should take care of our environment regardless. Renewable energy sources and generally "being green" are environmentally and economically responsible. On whether AGW is wrong: "What if we make the world a better place for nothing??"

[kocher]

Best regards dmgould and wx_jon

I thank you very much for this careful response. It is very good to have a place where you can comment without a war.

I want to make it clear, in the first place, that I totally agree that we should all take care of nature, and this is so, out of sheer common sense.

There is a general tendency, grave error, to associate statistical calculations with a cause.

We must remember that statistics do not study the causality of phenomena

What I am not at all agree is the conclusion that is drawn on a short series of records, of which we have, for now, no guarantee of the quality of their measures.

We must remember that the theory of relativity of Mr. Albert Einstein, took decades to be admitted; in fact the vast majority of the scientific community treated him like a madman. The Nobel Prize that was granted to him, was not related to the elaboration of the theory of the Relativity. By all this I mean that the opinion of any majority in scientific affairs has never been a guarantee of the veracity of a scientific theory.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPINNIN ... MATE08.pdf

The great discoveries, I dare say, have been generally carried out, against the majority of scientists. In the field of medical sciences there are many demonstrative examples.

[wx_jon]

kocher, thank you too for your response, and I am glad to hear that you also support taking care of the environment. And yeah, I definitely don't want a war either (North Korea will take care of that ). In fact, this is very helpful to me because it helps me understand your point of view.

It is definitely true that correlation does not equal causation. I was careful in my formulation of my previous post to not directly relate CO2 to global temperatures. There are simply too many uncontrolled factors in the earth-atmosphere system to definitively isolate the effects of anthropogenic emissions. But in the climate models, we can control just one specific parameter.

It seems as though your main issue is with the data scientists use to show trends in global mean temperatures. I hope I can ease your conscience a little here. Every major dataset (land temperatures, sea surface temperatures, ocean heat content, weather balloons, satellites) shows a warming trend in the last few decades. Those that extend to earlier times correctly show features such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Each of those datasets consist of thousands of quality-controlled instruments, much like the ones you and I use to measure the weather in our backyards, except for satellites, which are nonetheless extensively analyzed by hundreds of scientists. Even self-described "climate skeptics" who analyze these data agree that the earth is warming (example). They disagree on the cause of warming.

Unfortunately, a lot of doubt has been cast on the quality of data by a handful of people (some reputable scientists, others not) who have (sometimes correctly) accused authors of published papers of introducing flaws in their data analysis. In cases where this has happened, the papers have been retracted. Often though, the retractions (or rejections in peer-review) for data falsification are for papers that try to diminish the warming trend. These back-and-forth accusations (and wrongdoing) on such a hot topic as global warming have led to a distrust of the scientific process and the data, diminishing the good work of thousands of scientists who merely objectively measure the earth system.

As I said earlier, we scientists wish there weren't an unprecedented warming trend. We wish it could be explained by natural variability. Unfortunately, for now, no explanations for the warming other than AGW hold water. We're still eagerly waiting for any great discovery of an alternative to AGW. A wait of several decades in our current age of technology, however, is way too long.

Having been to scientific conferences, I know that respected scientists argue over everything. We all have at least some desire to prove each other wrong. We're all looking for the next great idea. That's why, as you say, great ideas have often come from the outside of the majority. But they won't become the consensus without evidence.

P.S.: Einstein also got it wrong, on quantum mechanics. ("God does not play dice.")

[kocher]

I quite agree with almost all your explanations.

The problem I have is that, until now, no one has shown me the goodness of the values ​​that are set out to validate the hypothesis of global warming.

I distrust official publications, due to the narrow time frame they refer to and the more than proven existence of the falsification of any data or argument that says anything to the contrary (including the elimination of decades with cooling data).

I continue with my ignorance. I do not know if the earth is cooling or heating.
I believe that the only possibility of carrying out a scientific study of the problem is to agree on basic premises:

- Which stations are going to measure the temperature? (know its location, installation, maintenance, goodness of your data ...)

- When do we start the study?

- What data have been obtained ?. Possibility to access said data in real time.

When did we finish the study?

- Who will be in charge of running the studio?

- Possibility to see the descriptive statistics of those results.

- Know the statistical treatment given to the data to analyze trends.

- Establish the possibility of discussing the final results.

As a summary of what I think:

- I think the goal of some panels of scientists, has been to establish a conclusion agreed in advance (move the target so that the arrow right in the center).

- Maybe we're just in time to undo the mess. For this, there is no choice but to be serious (scientific thinking):

- Begin by publishing the purpose of a study on the temperature trend on the ground.

- Explain the material and methods to be used.

- Wait for results

- Escape from extra scientific advertising (sinking glaciers, earthquakes, hurricanes ..)

We have to stick to scientific thinking and, in my opinion, it is absent.

PD:

I must add that it is a pleasure to read your arguments in an elegant and courteous way

[Luc]

Hi Kocher,
Let's start with using all the coles.
Then use all the oil.
When that is finished, concentrate on wind, solar energy and others.
Last but not least, start a study and argue about the outcomes.

[kocher]

Hi Kocher,
Let's start with using all the coles.
Then use all the oil.
When that is finished, concentrate on wind, solar energy and others.
Last but not least, start a study and argue about the outcomes.

Salut Luc

The recipe is not bad at all.
I recommend using extra virgin olive oil (AOVE) produced in Spain.

Afterwards, we sat down to study the results

Saludos desde San Sebastian (Spain)

[Luc]

OK, let' s have something to eat and have a glass of wine and discuss the problems of the world.

[kocher]