Global Warming in fiction - Robinson vs Crichton

[Coolhand]

True, but your summary appears to give equal weight to both viewpoints. The kind of figures I have seen are that about 98% of climate scientists believe that human activities have a dominant responsibility for climate change. Given that you will never get 100% agreement over such a complex issue, that is as close to unanimous as you are ever likely to see.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, the debate about what's happening and why is over. The only issue now, is what to do about it.

From what I've seen it's no-where near 98%. And the realities as to what goes on behind the computer models and reports are no where near as simple as A+B=C. The IPCC reports for example, are actually quite controversial amongst some in the scientific community.

I give equal weight to both because, as far as I can see, there are still waaaay too many unanswered questions in the actual science. To say that the debate is over is simply not true. Many people may have made thier minds up and set thier positions, but the actual scientific debate goes on. A quick check on the net shows that.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

From what I've seen it's no-where near 98%. And the realities as to what goes on behind the computer models and reports are no where near as simple as A+B=C. The IPCC reports for example, are actually quite controversial amongst some in the scientific community.

I give equal weight to both because, as far as I can see, there are still waaaay too many unanswered questions in the actual science. To say that the debate is over is simply not true. Many people may have made thier minds up and set thier positions, but the actual scientific debate goes on. A quick check on the net shows that.

Activity on the net does not equate to the strength of the scientific arguments, or the percentage of climate scientists who dissent from the consensus.

The very small percentage of remaining sceptics are making one hell of a racket on the net and elsewhere, but they have still to produce any evidence in support of any alternative explanation for the current warming trend. The impression I have gained is that most climate scientists ignore these mavericks as irrelevant - they have better things to do with their time than carry on debating issues generally regarded as resolved.

The only controversy over the IPCC reports among the scientific community (as opposed to the mavericks) is that the scientists' conclusions were watered down somewhat by the political representatives of some of the countries.

 

[Coolhand]

The very small percentage of remaining sceptics are making one hell of a racket on the net and elsewhere, but they have still to produce any evidence in support of any alternative explanation for the current warming trend.

Here's some.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav bibliography LONG VERSION Feb 6-07.pdf

Please note the references to the reports, studies, papers and journals in which they appeared. This is not the only such report

Now, pro GW groups can put fowards similar papers, with similar references.

Which means the science is still being seriously debated, no matter what the media, oil industry or environmental NGO's might say.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

No papers published compare with the IPCC reports, because they reflect not the views of a few, but the consensus of the vast majority.

This site (hosted by the UK's leading weekly science magazine) gives you a selection of more digestible articles if you prefer that: Special Report on Climate Change - New Scientist Environment

However, I've discovered in the past that those who will not be convinced by the IPCC reports won't accept any other evidence pointed out to them, so there is no point in my continuing: this will be my last contribution to this debate here.

 

[Coolhand]

No papers published compare with the IPCC reports, because they reflect not the views of a few, but the consensus of the vast majority.

This site (hosted by the UK's leading weekly science magazine) gives you a selection of more digestible articles if you prefer that: Special Report on Climate Change - New Scientist Environment

However, I've discovered in the past that those who will not be convinced by the IPCC reports won't accept any other evidence pointed out to them, so there is no point in my continuing: this will be my last contribution to this debate here.

Actually, I'll cheerfully read anything and have bookmarked that page for study. Thanks for the link. Like I said, I'm still making up my mind. I was simply taking issue with your statement that the debate was over amongst the scientists when it clearly isn't as the links we've both provided prove.

 

[HardScienceFan]

With the exception of books by Budyko,Crowley,and Henderson-Sellers I have a reasonable cross-section of paleoclimate literature.I know what goes into climate models,and what doesn't,or gets put in simplified*for the simple reason that running a major climate simulation is bloody expensive*.I've read loads of articles in Global and Planetary Change,Pal3,Climate Dynamics,the journal of Climate,Earth and Planetary Science Letters,etc.
Believe me when I say it's not simple.
The weather may be changing,but whether the globally averaged thingy we call climate is changing is another matter.I am weary of "what is almost certain".
It was almost certain that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Do I think we have to cut back on our emissions of greenhouse gases?Yes,of course I do.We owe it to future generations to stop the devastation
of our planet.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Curious - I received an email notifying me that another message had been posted in this thread (by kcs_hiker) together with its text, but when I go to the thread the message isn't here...is there a home for ghost messages somewhere?

 

[Arnold Magnum]

It appears our Carbon Footprint is extending outward into the Solar System:





Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.



Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

 

[Steve Jordan]

As well-researched and comprehensive as Robinson's and Crichton's works may be, they are still simply works of fiction. Although the subject of climate change deserves discussion, tying it into works of fiction is actually pointless. Any discussion should be limited to the facts.

Of course, a great deal of the "facts" in this matter are based on interpretations of data, and when it comes to climate... one of the most complex and mysterious subjects known to Man... very little is certain. That's why it is so easy to debate the subject ad nauseum... it's like predicting where the next bolt of lightning will strike.

However we view the data, however, no one can argue the fact that we are rapidly consuming finite global resources, heavily polluting the planet, and rapidly approaching the point when our planet cannot recover from our damage. We are also approaching seven billion people on this same planet, people who will need these thinning resources to survive.

So, whatever we believe about the data, we should be working towards more efficient use of our finite resources. It is a fact that pollution causes health hazards, and we should take every step we can to minimize that hazard. It is a fact that populations cut off from resources like energy will suffer for it, and possibly spark new conflicts to obtain it, and we should take every step to replace the finite resources with sustainable sources.

Along the way, we can continue to monitor the climate, and possibly we will build up enough data concerning the relationships between our global resource consumption and global climate to come up with a consensus that no reasonable person can argue about.

But even if we are still arguing... there will be no doubt that we will be better off.