Anthropogenic Climate Change

[orogenicman]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature.../page4.php

Is Current Warming Natural?
In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

NASA satellites record a host of vital signs including atmospheric aerosols (particles from both natural sources and human activities, such as factories, fires, deserts, and erupting volcanoes), atmospheric gases (including greenhouse gases), energy radiated from Earth’s surface and the Sun, ocean surface temperature changes, global sea level, the extent of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice, plant growth, rainfall, cloud structure, and more.
On the ground, many agencies and nations support networks of weather and climate-monitoring stations that maintain temperature, rainfall, and snow depth records, and buoys that measure surface water and deep ocean temperatures. Taken together, these measurements provide an ever-improving record of both natural events and human activity for the past 150 years.
Scientists integrate these measurements into climate models to recreate temperatures recorded over the past 150 years. Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.
Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years.
_________________
More at the link.

[lilphil1989]

I'd probably start with the synthesis report from the IPCC's 4th Assesment.

IPCC don't carry out their own original research. You can discount them and anything they claim to "contribute" to AGW.

How does the conclusion that anything they say is discountable follow from the fact that they haven't produced the research under review?

I'm asking you to falsify AGW. If you can't then there's nothing to debate - climate change is dead.

Just because something can't be falsified given current evidence doesn't mean it's absolutely unfalsifiable.
Actually, not being falsified by current data is the bare minimum needed for a scientific explanation of anything.

Per person? How did they work that out? Aren't there more sheep than people in Wales?

hat does the number of sheep have to do with carbon emissions per person? :S

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

No, what you said was:-

When it comes to the basic science of AGW, there's really nothing you can argue against.

Demonstrating that when I said

I said that the basic science is inarguable, not that AGW is indisputable.

I was telling the truth? I really don't see what the problem is here. So the phrasing is slightly different. They both mean the exact same thing.

So you're arguing correlation proves causation, in spite of the fact that you're committing a logical fallacy?

That depends what you mean by prove. Like I've said several times already, there is no absolute truth in science.
Does one correlation imply causation? No.
Do many independant correlations predicted by some hypothesis lend support to that hypothesis? Sure.

Would you care to offer an alternative way to determine causation that doesn't involve observing
correlations? If you have one, I'm sure the scientific community would very much like to hear from you.

No, "partially responsible" couldn't be further more the truth. What else is the driving force behind our weather climate if it's not our planet's own parent star?

Conditions on the earth. The amount and ratios of atmospheric gases and the reflection coefficient from cloud cover for example cannot be ignored.

Suppose we were to engage in a kind of "reverse cloud-seeding" experiment, making it impossible for clouds to form anywhere on earth. Obviously, this has no effect on solar output. But would the climate of earth remain the same?

As for evidence, you claimed that climate scientists ignore solar forcing. A few recent papers or reviews in the literature which (in context) fail to take into account or make reference to solar forcing would be adequate evidence for this claim.

I've yet to see any proponent of AGW here actually link me to one of these peer-reviewed papers or journals. Perhaps you will be the first?

You made the claim "climate scientists don't take solar output into account". The burden of proof for that claim is on you.

Nonetheless, Houghton's review in Reports on Progress in Physics is an example of a review article with a section discussing variations in solar output.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/6..._6_R02.pdf

[EDIT: Apologies if you can't access this. For some reason I thought Institute of Physics publications were freely accessible, which isn't the case.]

And with all due respect the IPCC can take their tax-payers' millions and fuck off

Very respectful.

They don't carry out any original research. They don't help your argument in any way. They don't even monitor climate related data or parameters.

I don't see how the fact that they are not carrying out original research is a valid objection. The fact that a meta-analysis is performed by someone that wasn't involved in one of the research projects considered in the analysis, is irrelevant.

It seems like you're trying to say that individual results are fine, but as soon as anyone tries to compile them, they suddenly become invalid for some reason.

Yes but there's more than one type of empirical and scientific evidence that would satisfy my standards...

What are they?

...not just statistical analysis, because while providing some benefits in experiments how we interpret the data in the end, or lack of, may not actually be what is demonstrably occurring within reality.

I think you misunderstand the role of statistics in science.
MAybe you're arguing against what someone in the media or politics would call "statistics" as this

may not actually be what is demonstrably occurring within reality.

and your earlier comment about using statistics you show anything you want would imply. The media doesn't understand statistics (or pretends not to, to make overexaggerated claims to sell newspapers etc) and misuses the ideas without really caring about any kind of mathematical or scientific validity. (Incidentally, if you're interested in this I'd reccomend Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science".)

Statisctical analyses are well-defined mathematical procedures for quantifying correlations in data, and judging the agreement or otherwise between data and a hypothesis.
Without scientific statistics, there's really no way to quantify how likely a scientific claim is to be true.

[Sam]

IPCC don't carry out their own original research. You can discount them and anything they claim to "contribute" to AGW.

Thats non-sensical in the extreme. The IPCC Assesment Reports are some of the most thorough and well funded reviews of climate science available. Whats more is that these revies are carried out largely by scientists involved in the field.

To simply flipantly discount them as you have done shows nothing except your pre-existing bias and willful ignorance of the plethora of information they provide.

Can you provide me some links please?

With all due respect Welsh Cake, I told you exactly where you can find the information you asked for. I have no intention of trawling Google Scholar, Web of Science and other Catalogues to provide links to primary papers you might not even be able to access due to the requirement for subscription.

If you'd like to actually start by giving the IPCC reports the chance they deserve you can start here;

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...orts.shtml

Otherwise, I'd kindly ask you to do your own research and not expect me to lead you by the hand.

Okay, let me rephrase the question again then, how do you differentiate between a natural climate trend and a trend induced by anthropogenic climate change?

I'm not asking for indisputable evidence that we are actually affecting our climate because all that seems to be on offer is a few skewed graphs and the assertions of governmental department cronies looking to place new legislation and so-called green taxes on an already failing industry.

I'm asking you to falsify AGW. If you can't then there's nothing to debate - climate change is dead.

A natural climate trend is presumed to be one which is within the bounds of variations observed in various paleo-climatic records. The anthropogencialy affected trend in the climate (over the past 100 years or so) is largely outside of variations previously observed and correlates excellently with the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2. Given the unusual change in the climate and the correlation with anthropogenic activity it is completely sound to consider this a non-natural trend.

Again, you claim that all that is on offer is "skewed graphs from governmental department cronies" but I seriously doubt you have even taken the time to review the evidences presented by them. Your argument plainly reveals your bias on the issue to the extent where I doubt you'd accept any evidence presented if it was even remotely funded by a government or national organisation. Would you be so kind as to tell me how the data are 'skewed' by them? Or why if all that is being saught is 'new-legislation' and 'green taxes' has every large scale summit on AGW failed to produce measureable results?

I think your deluding yourself if you believe that the ideals and morals of concerned scientists and stakeholders affects the decisions of governments plainly operating under realpolitik. It's clear that if possible, governments around the world would carry on the current state of affairs indefinetely and would like to reduce constraints on economic growth not increase them.

Falsfying AGW is not a complex task, you can demonstrate that the current observed changes in the climate are unconnected with anthropgenic activity. Alternatively, demonstrate that the levels of variation we are seeing can equally be attributed to climate feedbacks or other natural phonomena. Scientists who oppose AGW theories have tried to do this but so far cannot conclusively show any of it.

How did they work that out? Aren't there more sheep than people in Wales?

It's standard practice to present measures of a nation in terms of a Gross and Per Capita figure. In terms of CO2 contribution, the total CO2 output from anthropogenic activity is divided by the population. This gives an estimate of the lifestyle of the people in said country and their energy and material usages.

No, "partially responsible" couldn't be further more the truth. What else is the driving force behind our weather climate if it's not our planet's own parent star? It's certainly not going to be Proxima Centauri now it is?

The sun provides the incoming energy flux to the planet, agreed. This incoming energy flux unevenly heats the Earths surface establishing air circulation in the climatic cells, agreed. Ths sun is such a way is a primary factor in the earths climate but it is by no means the only one worth consdiering as you seem to believe. As I've said, the variations in solar radiative forcing are no where near the scale of changes in the climate and do not correspond with temperature increases etc ...

There are other factors in the climate system which affect it. You need to accept that if you want to understand the basics of climate science.

Seriously, cut out your nonsense with allegations of me being underhanded. And with all due respect the IPCC can take their tax-payers' millions and fuck off*. They don't carry out any original research. They don't help your argument in any way. They don't even monitor climate related data or parameters.

*Actually, I think the US Government are basically telling them to "fuck off" by stopping their funding:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/...g-of-ipcc/

So, scientists reviewing and compiling the work of other scientists in the same field is now not proper practice? Taking global research on the climate system and presenting it all for federal and public consumption is a bad thing?

Of course pointing someone to the most thourough review of relevant literature is helpful, not accepting that is your perogative but don't then turn around and claim no one is offering you the eveidence.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, unfortunately I don't see the logic in your position.

Cheers

Sam

[orogenicman]

If it could be shown that anthropogenic GHGs are not the cause of global warning, that would falisfy the AGW paradigm. Perhaps that is why some skeptics try so hard to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[Anomalocaris]

In my personal experience exceptionally large majority of global warming deniers also disbelieve evolution, thinks fossil fuel is really an inexhaustible mineral resource from the mantle, worships Reagan, and thinks Obama faked his birth certificate.

[orogenicman]

In my personal experience exceptionally large majority of global warming deniers also disbelieve evolution, thinks fossil fuel is really an inexhaustible mineral resource from the mantle, worships Reagan, and thinks Obama faked his birth certificate.

That's probably true on this side of the pond.