All over the media and in political institutions we are bombarded with the phrase "trust the science", whatever that means. It is a glib phrase which means "you are too uninformed and must take my word for it". I prefer the Royal Society's motto "Nullius in Verba", which means take nobody's word for it. In other words do your own due diligence. The article below discusses the trustworthiness of the science applied to climate change.
Climate gate is not really related to the reality of whether our warming climate is real. GHGs increasing in the atmosphere has a very clear path of evidence pointing to we are warming from that very action on the part of humans.
ReplyDeleteShould you believe this not to be true, then its encumbent on the part of the doubter to do so based in evidence. Based in evidence 98% of the climate scientists agree that the evidence points towards warming of the earth and points towards human actions that have caused that. It is now up to you to prove otherwise. Distrust of scientists is not evidence that GHGs do not warm the earth's surface. If not GHGs, then what is warming the earth? Keep in mind, science has ruled out the other possibilities based in evidence.
"science has ruled out the other possibilities [ to cause warming] based in evidence." - I must have missed that bit!
ReplyDeleteThere are many natural causes of warming and cooling of the earth. El Ninos for a start and then there are volcanoes which spew out fine dust and water vapour. Variation in cloud cover is not well understood, but could be an important factor.
Science is not decided by the number of scientists who believe something. It is always the data which takes precedence. Data on climate is very poor for all but the past century and that is too short to be certain about anything.
{{{{{{Data on climate is very poor for all but the past century and that is too short to be certain about anything.}}}}}
DeleteI have shown that is false.
Is there a consensus based in the data. In this case, the answer is yes. The data clearly shows that humans are the driving force of the warming at the earth's surface. This paper by skeptical science demonstrates scientific consensus. The conclusion of each paper shows humans warmed the earth by different scientific methods. This is the power of the science process. These scientists are not hiding behind anything. It is integrity that brings out the truth.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
Below are the 5 major influences on the earth's energy balance. This isn't just one paper, but it is 8 papers on the very subject.
human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Solar activity
Volcanic activity
Human aerosol emissions
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
Tett et al. estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming.
Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects. Over the most recent 50 years in their study (1950-2000), natural effects combined for a net cooling, and thus like Tett et al., Meehl et al. concluded that human caused more than 100% of the global warming over that period. Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their estimate.
Over that full 104-year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming. Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions. They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, respectively.
Over that full 104-year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming. Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions. They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, respectively.
Stott et al
The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.
More than 85% of the global heat uptake has gone into the oceans, so by including this data, their study is particularly robust.
Huber and Knutti estimate that since 1850 and 1950, approximately 75% and 100% of the observed global warming is due to human influences, respectively.
FR11 found that the three natural effects in their analysis exerted a small net cooling effect from 1979 to 2010, and therefore the leftover influence, which is predominantly due to human effects, is responsible for more than 100% of the oberved global warming over that timeframe.
Gillett et al. estimated that over both timeframes, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the observed warming.