Maybe science isn't a communist plot after all.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...730-23769.html

I suppose I should be impressed that a 'sceptic' has been able to change his mind based on evidence, however I still find it a little depressing that:
a) an apparently qualified person still doesn't seem to appreciate the level of certainty in the underlying science of the greenhouse effect (as opposed to the difficult process of measuring a weak signal in a lot of noise); and
b) judging from the comments, most of the nutters will resolutely stay on message.

Oh well.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Now, now. I've been persuaded of the likelihood of human induced warming since 1976, and from direct contact with many of the scientists (and perhaps more convincingly, the technicians) involved in measuring the effects, I have only become more convinced.

But I still wouldn't call people who disagree as nutters. At least, not per se.

Counterproductive, if nothing else.

[Astro_Bot]

I have nothing against someone changing their mind based on the balance of evidence. What I do mind is when someone, presented with clear and unequivocal evidence, still refuses to change their mind. Then, it is no longer science but ideology.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Now, now. I've been persuaded of the likelihood of human induced warming since 1976, and from direct contact with many of the scientists (and perhaps more convincingly, the technicians) involved in measuring the effects, I have only become more convinced.

But I still wouldn't call people who disagree as nutters. At least, not per se.

Counterproductive, if nothing else.

I think it depends on what is meant by disagreement.

Plenty of disagreement is potentially not nutty. For example, here are few genuinely sceptical positions which seem at least arguable to me:
- There is much uncertainty about how fast the effects of global warming are going to take place.
- There is much uncertainty about what the local weather effects of global warming will be.
- Some of the wilder claims of the environmental movement are not supported by the science.
- The generally proposed economic responses are not likely to be effective.
- I'm not a scientist and am confused by the debate.

The nutters are the ones who (as per my headline) think science is a communist plot and that some half-thought-out catch-phrase they heard from Alan Jones wipes out a century of well-tested science.

[mostschaedel (Gerald)]

Hi,
as we have precise scientific information now about the change of the average Earth temperature
in the last 250 years- can anbody tell me the average earth temperature for example for tomorrow 5:00 PM UT
and how he/she has/would measure and calculate it basically?

I do not have the lightest imagination how this 4 dimensional challenge of calculating and modelling
"Average Earth Temperature" is solved. I am not a climate change sceptic because
i cant imagine that the climate does not change.
But publishing average temperature numbers precise on 0.x makes me
sceptic about these measurements because today i see only the complexity
to get and calculate such numbers and compare it for example with satellite data and submarine data from 250
years ago....

Gerald

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I think it is pretty obvious that we can calculate the average height of an Australian male and also determine how that is changing over time, but that doesn't help me much if i want to know the height of the next person to walk through my door. The analysis doesn't offer that sort of predictive power. Similarly, this latest climate analysis won't tell us much about tomorrow but is better at predicting the annual averages in 10 or 20 years time.

Interestingly this analysis eschews climate models and simply compares the climate record to other established records such as solar output, volcanoes, ocean oscillations, CO2 concentration and CH4 concentration. They look for similarity in changes - correlation. They see cooling dips associated with explosive volcanism, the effect of the southern oscillation (el nino, la nina), Indian Ocean dipole and other ocean circulations but no variation associated with changes in solar output. However most of the change correlates to the increase in atmospheric CO2. That is, the CO2 curve and the temperature curve are the best match to each other. Of course correlation alone doesn't prove causation but when there is a powerful, robust explanation as to why one should cause the other the case is very strong.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

... but when there is a powerful, robust explanation as to why one should cause the other the case is very strong.

This is exactly the point that never seems to be addressed by the 'sceptics'.

If all we had was a noisy graph of global temperatures, then it would mean very little, and certainly wouldn't prove we were the cause of any increase.

But we don't have just that. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can quantify its effect. And we know that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and can quantify how much. And these things are extremely well understood and connect to vast quantities of other science and technology that no one seems to think is in doubt. And we put these two things together and we know we are raising the temperature.

Which bit of this reasoning is the problem?

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can quantify its effect. And we know that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and can quantify how much. And these things are extremely well understood and connect to vast quantities of other science and technology that no one seems to think is in doubt. And we put these two things together and we know we are raising the temperature.

Which bit of this reasoning is the problem?

Dave, you make excellent points. The extra link that I would add is that we've also directly observed the enhanced greenhouse effect through the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation at CO2-specific wavelengths in satellite observations (Harries et al 2001), and an increase in the downward longwave radiation at the same wavelengths (Philipona 2004 IIRC). Both of these are confirmational direct measurements of the greenhouse effect, in line with what was predicted over a century ago, and in line with what is expected from physics. So not only did we expect the consequence of our emissions (temperature rise), we've seen it actually happening at CO2-specific wavelengths of the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum. Astronomers should appreciate the significance of absorbtion lines in spectra!

Then you can think about types of warming that are particular to greenhouse gases (and not to the Sun, for example) - for example stratosphere cooling with troposphere warming, nights warming faster than days, winter faster than summer. These are all happening too. And there are plenty of attribution studies that are much more advanced than Muller's.

Muller's gradually catching up with the state of modern science. He reached about 1980 with the first BEST results, he's now reaching the 1990s with these results. While it's entertaining to watch Muller very publicly doing his homework (and it should be scary for so-called skeptics), he's still not caught up with the science!

[Max Vondel (Peter)]

I think that both sides have their pro's and con's
Healthy discussion is part of good science provided people don't get too emotional about it. Unfortunately sensibility goes right out the window sometimes. The planet seems to take care of it's self. 650 Mya the world was frozen from pole to the equator. In the middle Jurrasic there was no ice at all. The planet manages this without any intervention by us. A big problem is that we see ourselves as something separate from the planet. We are part of the planet and our actions are part of the planet. If we destroy ourselves, life will raise up another creature to take our place. Our loss and the planets gain! The evolution of an oxygen atmosphere 2.6 Bya was also catastrophic development at the time for the cells living then. But because of it we are here today. I think that it's obvious that all the chemicals (not just CO2) released into the atmosphere changes our environment. But as history shows the people as a whole always need to fear some catastrophic end. A few decades ago it was nuclear annihilation. Now the cold war is over it's green house warming. When we solve that one another global fear will take it's place. Let's not forget that a bit of green house warming is a good thing. (possibly better than another ice age which is the way it was going before the industrial revolution). Human avarice and greed are the currency of the day, perhaps it always has been. Only seeing the now rather than the future. While we live by the mighty maxim of economy first, we are unlikely to change that. And living for the ME rather than the US. How about some corporate responsibility. Something not often covered by modern economics! Let's celebrate the opportunity for healthy discussion. Even if not everyone agrees. That's part of good science. Wasn't the last world war fought for those principles. Lastly I'd like to point out Easter Island. Every thing was great at the start, then over population, chaos and collapse. Our world is like Easter Island. The planet can only support so many people without destroying our environment completely. My solution would be free televisions for everyone. Together with foxtel style programming, our population problems would be solved! Cos everyone would fall asleep watching and less hanky panky would mean less babies. Simple but effective.

To summarise:

We see ourselves at the centre of the universe.
History has proven that this is wrong.
The Life on the planet will go on with or without us.
It's our choice if we are going to be there or not.