http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4698652.stm



--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm
and
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/metindex.htm

Steve J, BWS wrote:

Recent warming globally is fact - the role played by Man is not, is it?
Although I can see the correlation with the Keeling curve showing
increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the link isn't necessarily causal, is
it?

I had felt a little lonely in my point of view until reading your post
- good to see the above.

--
Gianna

Recent warming globally is fact - the role played by Man is not, is it?
Although I can see the correlation with the Keeling curve showing
increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the link isn't necessarily causal,

Science improves through careful critique and stands up to scrutinization
which is to be welcomed and encouraged. This allows theories to be
re-visited and for either further supporting evidence to be found or for the
theory to be weakened, perhaps eventually resulting in its demise.

Over the past decade the science of anthropogenic climate change has been
scrutinized increasingly by the best of the worlds scientists and social
commentators. It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect? There are still some people alive today who believe that the
world is flat and that smoking has no affect on your risk of developing
respiratory problems.

In the face of overwhelmingly difficult and threatening news psychologists
are aware that one of the coping strategies that we employ is that of
denial. Sadly this will not help the current situation.

I don't intend to be disrespectful but please re-examine the evidence and
apply your critique in scientific terms. The Hadley Centre web site is a
good starting place -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...modeldata.html

Richard O.

Richard Orrell wrote:
.. It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Sorry, I don't wish to get into a heated debate over this, but there
are a number of anthropogenic global warming sceptics out there who
would agree that cycles of warming and cooling are natural phenomena -
how could Europe have had some 20 "ice phases" in the past 1.6 million
years since the Pliocene without variations in solar output?


There are still some people alive today who believe that the
world is flat and that smoking has no affect on your risk of developing
respiratory problems.

Please do not stoop so low as to insult the intelligence of
uk.sci.weather members - that was a cheap shot:-)


I don't intend to be disrespectful but please re-examine the evidence and
apply your critique in scientific terms. The Hadley Centre web site is a
good starting place -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...modeldata.html

Indeed you ARE being disrespectful! The Hadley Centre is a respected
body of opinion that we use in our work, but it is only one voice in
the debate.

It is important to maintain a balanced view, something the media do not
do, and that was the point of my original post.

I was merely posing questions, not taking sides in the debate - those
of us in education are committed to offering both sides of an argument,
and at the moment it is skewed by the media towards the global warming
alarmists.

Steve Jackson

Steve

Calm down!

I agree with your (and other people's) scepticism when considering past
climate change and present GW: it is a valid argument/discussion.

The problem I have (and I can understand Richard's anxiety), is that we are
changing the chemistry of our atmosphere, taking out the 'natural' equation
and introducing an unknown.

The world is warming, but what happens if CO2 does cause a runaway warming;
positive feedback etc etc, far and above previous knowns. Remember, we have
nowhere else to go, this is our only home, is it worth the risk? I think we
should be proceeding with more caution when dealing with something so
precious.
________________
Nick G
Exe Valley, Devon
50 m amsl

"Steve J, BWS" wrote in message
oups.com...

Richard Orrell wrote:
. It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of
scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due
to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Sorry, I don't wish to get into a heated debate over this, but there
are a number of anthropogenic global warming sceptics out there who
would agree that cycles of warming and cooling are natural phenomena -
how could Europe have had some 20 "ice phases" in the past 1.6 million
years since the Pliocene without variations in solar output?


There are still some people alive today who believe that the
world is flat and that smoking has no affect on your risk of developing
respiratory problems.

Please do not stoop so low as to insult the intelligence of
uk.sci.weather members - that was a cheap shot:-)


I don't intend to be disrespectful but please re-examine the evidence and
apply your critique in scientific terms. The Hadley Centre web site is a
good starting place -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...modeldata.html

Indeed you ARE being disrespectful! The Hadley Centre is a respected
body of opinion that we use in our work, but it is only one voice in
the debate.

It is important to maintain a balanced view, something the media do not
do, and that was the point of my original post.

I was merely posing questions, not taking sides in the debate - those
of us in education are committed to offering both sides of an argument,
and at the moment it is skewed by the media towards the global warming
alarmists.

Steve Jackson

Steve, absolutely no offence meant, my apologies if that is how one of my
statements was interpreted, I was simply trying to state a fact...but there
are issues that a minority of people will never accept including the widely
held view that the earth is (almost) spherical. That's life, and one reason
why it is so interesting!

However I still question whether there is a sensible debate still to be had
over whether athropogenic influences are having an affect on climate change.
The science tells us, natural changes occur - for sure (always have been,
probably always will be), and on top of that we have the anthropogenic
effect which is the major cause of the recent warming , at least since the
industrial revolution.

In June 2005 all of the national science academies of the G8 nations (incl.
U.S. , where incidentally much of the best science is being done in this
area) issued a clear statement that included "It is likely that most of the
warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. " See -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4616431.stm

What hard evidence do you have which makes their statement invalid?

I contend that the scientifc case is overwhelming and there is no real
debate on whether human activities do have an affect. However there is loads
of fascinating debate over the size, impact, consequences and what
mitigating action is needed.

(Another cold night just had, min temp -3.5 deg. C)

Richard.


"Steve J, BWS" wrote in message
oups.com...

Richard Orrell wrote:
. It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of
scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due
to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Sorry, I don't wish to get into a heated debate over this, but there
are a number of anthropogenic global warming sceptics out there who
would agree that cycles of warming and cooling are natural phenomena -
how could Europe have had some 20 "ice phases" in the past 1.6 million
years since the Pliocene without variations in solar output?


There are still some people alive today who believe that the
world is flat and that smoking has no affect on your risk of developing
respiratory problems.

Please do not stoop so low as to insult the intelligence of
uk.sci.weather members - that was a cheap shot:-)


I don't intend to be disrespectful but please re-examine the evidence and
apply your critique in scientific terms. The Hadley Centre web site is a
good starting place -
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...modeldata.html

Indeed you ARE being disrespectful! The Hadley Centre is a respected
body of opinion that we use in our work, but it is only one voice in
the debate.

It is important to maintain a balanced view, something the media do not
do, and that was the point of my original post.

I was merely posing questions, not taking sides in the debate - those
of us in education are committed to offering both sides of an argument,
and at the moment it is skewed by the media towards the global warming
alarmists.

Steve Jackson

In message .com,
"Steve J, BWS" writes

Richard Orrell wrote:
. It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Sorry, I don't wish to get into a heated debate over this, but there
are a number of anthropogenic global warming sceptics out there who
would agree that cycles of warming and cooling are natural phenomena -
how could Europe have had some 20 "ice phases" in the past 1.6 million
years since the Pliocene without variations in solar output?

The scientific consensus is that these result from the interaction of
cyclical variations in the Earth's orbit and orientation with the
current terrestrial geography. (This view was originally introduced by
Milankovitch.)

I am puzzled as to what "miraculous" mechanism allows also the direct
and indirect effects of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions to cancel out
so that there is no effect on the climate.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Richard Orrell wrote:
Steve, absolutely no offence meant, my apologies if that is how one of my
statements was interpreted, I was simply trying to state a fact...

No offence taken Richard. Sorry too if Nick thought I was in need of
calming - my second post did contain a smiley, but may have been lost
in translation!

As to the environment, you should be in my lessons when I am teaching
about the destruction of the Ozone layer, the emissions of greenhouse
gases, the acid rain debate (now gone away in the UK?), the issues of
recycling and nuclear waste generation - now then my students might
wish that I calm down:-)

As a teacher, we do try to give a balanced view, and at times even play
Devil's advocate to provoke a reaction and a debate.

In a more reflective mood this morning, I would accept anthropogenic
enhanced warming during a natural period of warming!

Steve Jackson

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:52:58 -0000, "Richard Orrell"
wrote:

It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Comments like this always worry me a little. I think it's true that
most scientists can agree on the accuracy and validity of a paritcular
data-set in their field. As to the interpretation of that data,
especially as to its place in a much wider world view, well that's a
different matter.

(I should add that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the current GW
consensus at all, merely taking issue with the idea that because a
majority of scientists might agree with a given interpretation of data
at some point in time then this is automatically going to be borne out
long-term as an accurate interpetation.)

In my experience, most scientists do not form their own independent
perspective on major scientific issues. Rather, in the main and much
like the rest of humanity, they get caught up in whatever the
prevailing bandwagon might be in their own department or peer group or
sub-discipline. Fortunately there are a few who can genuinely think
for themselves and it's these folk who introduce the real advances.
The trick is in spotting these people ahead of time and jumping on
their particular bandwagon.

John Dann

John Dann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:52:58 -0000, "Richard Orrell"
wrote:

It is fair to say that we have now arrived at an almost
unprecedented situation when a totally overwhelming majority of scientists
the world over agree that the recent warming trend is significantly due to
anthropogenic affects. Are you really suggesting that all of these people
are incorrect?

Comments like this always worry me a little. I think it's true that
most scientists can agree on the accuracy and validity of a paritcular
data-set in their field. As to the interpretation of that data,
especially as to its place in a much wider world view, well that's a
different matter.

(I should add that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the current GW
consensus at all, merely taking issue with the idea that because a
majority of scientists might agree with a given interpretation of data
at some point in time then this is automatically going to be borne out
long-term as an accurate interpetation.)

In my experience, most scientists do not form their own independent
perspective on major scientific issues. Rather, in the main and much
like the rest of humanity, they get caught up in whatever the
prevailing bandwagon might be in their own department or peer group or
sub-discipline. Fortunately there are a few who can genuinely think
for themselves and it's these folk who introduce the real advances.
The trick is in spotting these people ahead of time and jumping on
their particular bandwagon.

John Dann

I am wondering if a word or two on the topic of causal relationships
would help. Not everyone is trained in statistical analysis and I
apologise to those who are for my simple examples below.

Silly example:
Strychnine has an LD50 of 1mg/1kg, so assuming no medical intervention,
if one eats 1 gram of the substance, one will die. The link between
eating the toxin and death is causal, and confidence in the outcome is
very high.

Serious example:
Someone already mentioned (quite accurately) smoking [tobacco] and the
increase in risk of respiratory problems.
There *is* a causal link in the use of tobacco and the *increased risk*
of such illnesses.
But there *is not* a causal link between the use of tobacco and
respiratory illness ... i.e. it cannot be said that if you smoke n
cigarettes you *will* contract a certain illness.

Climate change:
There is evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has
increased, and that human-related CO2 emissions have increased, and
these two sets of data somewhat inevitably appear related.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 and the decrease in tree populations
(worldwide) is worth a look.

There is also evidence of an increase in global temperatures, and there
is a correlation between the temperature rises and the CO2 rises.

I am unaware of any high confidence causal link between the two sets of
data (either way around).

This does not mean that I deny that humans are causing, or contributing
to, global warming. Nor does it mean that I think we should not change
our behaviour.

It means quite simply that the causal link has not yet been
mathematically established.

My personal view happens to be that *if* the current climate change is a
result of human activity, then preventive action needed to have been
taken between 1960 and 1970.
If on the other hand, it is a completely natural event, then no action
was possible.

The most likely situation is perhaps that the changes are a combination
of both the above, and anything humans can do to minimise their
contribution is a good idea. I try to do my bit.

Gianna