I wonder about the article title, too. How do they justify calling it "unprecedented" when they clearly state there's a precedent (melting events every 150 years on average)? Seems disingenuous at best.
Either way, could use plenty of clarification.
The sentiment you express: that we don't know for sure, our models are not fool-proof etc is a very particular, unscientific line of reasoning pumped out to convince the layman that there is no real scientific consensus, which is simply false. There is scientific consensus, climate scientists never state that the test for scientific theories is 100% certainty, nor do they claim their models are completely accurate (every model is wrong to a degree, by definition!)
The climate scientists and meteorologists in my family have moved on from debating with people now, seeing it as about as valuable as arguing about gravity with someone.
It feels like the 'global warming conspiracy' is the '9/11 was an inside job conspiracy' for right-wingers: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421... Both utterly absurd to the core.
No, there is not. Of you have been sleeping for a few years, then. Many scientists have come out in the recent past to stand against the "global warming" theory.
It is nothing like gravity where we can clearly experiment and it's predictable. Climate change is no way certain nor predictable, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either a fool or an ignorant. Climate models are based on so much data (standard variation is HUGE) that you cannot even draw a line without being laughed at by a statistician.
No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.
If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's.
[1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...
And I repeat again, there is no consensus. Consensus in science is not like a democratic vote. The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. Just like noone is casting doubt on Einstein s relativity theory in physics. Do we have that level of scientific certitude regarding climate? Hell no.
No, that is called the end of science.
However, when a scientist argues against the lack of long term data to discuss global warming, and the inconsistencies of the theory, he is met with disapproval, insults, and shunning. There is a lack of scientific discussions because there is a huge political agenda behind it, and it is not a surprise to see most of 'climate scientists' funded by governments who approve of that theory and want to have this on their agenda.
Kind of hard to keep a straight face as a scientist when your funding depends on the theory itself. Of course youd be fighting to make sure it remains the 'mainstream' theory.
Uhm, no. We can still do climate science without the problems, and there will be funds (maybe not as much, but that's ok). Climate is still something we want and need to understand, even if there is no problem at the moment (just imagine another ice age.. )
All the researchers here (Heidelberg) would be happy - euphoric! - to be able to disprove the theory. Just image, you'd be able to tell everyone it's gonna be ok.. but it's most probably not. And there are so many students and grad students working on the data - if there was a problem, can you really imagine that not a single student would be idealistic enough to speak up? (I totally would, but then I might be in already.)
You can download raw data if you want, and look at them yourself. Most projects actually have a data base, and if not just ask. If there is a problem in the way the data has been taken and evaluated, notice the authors. But a lot of people have looked over it already.As I said, everyone would be unbelievably happy if the problem didn't exist. Look here for some oceanic data, for example: http://woce.nodc.noaa.gov/wdiu/
There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...).
Your understanding of scientific consensus is not correct: "Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus).
You clearly have an opinion on this topic, but everything you've asserted in this thread is simply wrong. Debate on these issues is always fine (even with a scientific consensus, it does not mean 'no further debate') but you do the opposing camp a disservice when you promote falsehoods.
Forgive the cheek, but you really should be doing this before assuming a position in a debate: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+consensus+on+global+warming
The last 327 months of my life I have been taller than my average lifetime height.
Half of the human population has more testicles than the average person.
Statistics are fun when you throw them around.
Your other points (if I can be that generous) are meaningless, so I'll leave them alone.
My other points are not meaningless at all.
The temperature has been rising for ~150 years or more.
Of course the most recent half of the trend is higher than the average. It's meant to sound scary when it's just a plain fact that a rising trend will have most of the later part of the trend higher than the entire average.
A probability of the last part of a series being higher than the average would only be interesting if the series was random. The temperature series isn't random - it has a trend upwards. So the probability business is just nonsense. It's just a ridiculous way of saying the temperature series has trended up for a long time. (Long in human lifetime measurements, but not geological lifetime)
Hence : in the last 327 months of my life, I'm taller than my lifetime average. Because it would be very unlikely that the opposite would be the case.
Direct instrumental measurements only go back ~150 years, but another direct mechanism exists: borehole measurements [1]. This gives us a very good measurement of temperature over ~500 years. These show that at no time have temperature averages been as high as they are now.
We can go back even further, to the tune of 1000 years, through proxy data obtained via things like tree rings, coral growth, stalagmite layers, etc. This covers the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" and these data show the last century to be warmer than any other in the data set.
Not enough? Antarctic ice core analysis provides a record of the glacial-interglacial cycle over 100s of thousands of years. These data show that current average temperatures are higher than they've been over the last 100,000+ years. This is documented in Figure 2.22 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report [2].
[1] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html [2] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...
You live a sheltered life.
I was coming up with a list of cites, but at this point it'd just fall on deaf ears. If you're genuinely uncommitted, just look at what's published by everything from climate journals to general interest journals, like Nature and Science. Sure, the consensus might be wrong, but it's incredibly obvious that there is one: experts are very largely of the opinion that anthropogenic carbon emissions are a major driver of climate change.
Of course, I have family whose post-doc research is in this, so I might just be part of the conspiracy!
Edited to add: well, just to get you started, check out NPG's specialist climate journal: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html . No article is trying to prove anything beyond their own limited theses, but it's very clear where experts are coming from.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admiss...
"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."
This is coming from the GWPF itself : "It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade."
So, temperature increase? Hum ? Global Warming ? Hum ?CO2 levels are exploding but no significant temperature increase from 1998 - 2008.
More about so-called consensus : more than 1000 scientists worldwide dissent to "man-made global warming claims" : http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000...
Talk about consensus!
Here's how to "manufacture a consensus": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459...
Could you name one major scientific institution related to climate science that dispute anthropogenic climate change?
This is true in many areas of research. If you want funding there are certain opinions and buzzwords you should include when applying for funding.
There are scientists who advocate creation, not evolution and there is no easy way to "prove evolution" as an absolute fact.
People have their reasons for ignoring proofs of evolution and others have their reasons for ignoring proofs of global warming.
b) I think we may have just found you.
Are people seriously still asking this?
There is a whole list of "human missing links" on Wikipedia[1]. The best preserved are the Australopithecus afarensis set of skeletons[2].
It is thought that A. afarensis was more closely related to the genus Homo (which includes the modern human species Homo sapiens), whether as a direct ancestor or a close relative of an unknown ancestor, than any other known primate from the same time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Here's one: the fact that volcanic islands, which have land that has been historically only accessible to birds, have a number of bird species that have filled ecological niches normally filled by rodents.
Here's another: you can see in the fossil record progressive changes. Sure, there are missing links, but try coming up with an explanation that fits the islands fact (above) as well as this one. In addition, have it explain, in a way that permits further predictions, 10 other otherwise independent sources of evidence.
If we ignore all of those however, then I would agree that there isn't a scientific consensus in the general populous on climate change, especially among people who haven't bothered to look into the actual science of it particularly.
Also, more data does not equal worse statistics, at least on average anyway.
Sorry, but there is[1].
You are welcome to debate whether those scientist are right, and welcome to debate if other, non-climate specialists are better qualified to offer their opinion, but trying to argue against there being a consensus is misguided.
[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...
No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure.
There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines.
Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position.
I think the process is as follows:
1. Construct your own notion of how science works.
2. Dismiss climate science based on 1.
3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
1. Dismiss climate science because you don't like its conclusions
2. Construct a notion of how science works that lets you do 1
3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position
No it isn't.
A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....
Two points: - consensus isn't proof, it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Scientifically, it means nothing. The list of disproven theories that once had wide consensus is deep and rich in examples. It's OK to talk about a consensus, it's not OK to use this as a line of argument that something is true. - the IPCC models are woeful at predictions, the IPCC themselves have stated as much. It's not unscientific to express doubt about the models - it's unscientific to do the opposite.
The global warming movement isn't a conspiracy, but there are many interesting social phenomena that can be observed amongst it's ardent supporters.
Scientific consensus - no one asserted that it represents proof. You are wrong to say that scientifically it means nothing. I think you mean to say what Wikipedia says: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."
However from a societal point of view it is important, which is clearly highlighted by the attempts of the energy industry to promote the idea that there isn't a scientific consensus when there is one.
Obviously I take issue with the bits where you go on to talk about disproven theories and unreliability of models. You're veering off into that industry messaging which aims to convince a reader that the science we have is not solid enough to decide whether to act on emissions, which is completely false.
It's a recipe I hereby label the "global warming denialist's unscientific method":
1. Construct your own notion of how science works.
2. Dismiss climate science based on 1.
3. Convince yourself (and others) you hold a scientific position.
Maybe something like "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"?
In both cases the loudness of the wackos on both sides has drowned out the moderates and turned it into a political/religous debate.
What about those extreme and useless people precludes us from finding real solutions to a scientifically proven problem?
Forget the hippies. They'll never get anything real done. But if you find a way to produce cheap power, everything will benefit. Better sustainability is a win-win.
I'm not sure why we need a scapegoat to prevent us from doing good things for the world and possibly making a boatload of money doing so (not that that's the goal, but I imagine it's the primary concern for people with such criticisms). It's completely counter-intuitive to me why people would fight this.
"since 9/11 was a real terrorist attack, we MUST respond by invading this list of countries and enacting this list of restrictions on freedom"
is analogous to
"since global warming is really driven by carbon emissions, we MUST respond by subsidizing these industries, enacting these stealth taxes, and forcing consumers to engage in these behaviors"
On both sides, we've got the wacko conspiracy theorists. But we also have those who recognize the problem is real and want to push stupid solutions. That's another part of "drowning out the moderates".