Not sure about the others, but any papers published by Springer are peer-reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
Not sure about the others, but any papers published by Springer are peer-reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Guisslapp, i hate to use those kind of big words when posting to ArkBob.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Guisslapp, pretty sure nobody posting here is an expert on gw, but what is your personal view of the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The Springerlink article looks like it is peer-reviewed.
Here is an over-view of the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Essays on Science and Society
Also see the archival list of the Essays on Science and Society.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
My personal view is that I don't know whether or not GW is occurring or whether or not human activities exercise any "meaningful" influence over GW. There is so much junk science on both sides of the aisles that it is daunting task to sort through it all. Sure we can question the funding of the research or the motivations of the researchers, but I do not think that funding/motivation should automatically accredit or discredit the research. It is certainly relevant, but it doesn't tell us everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
It seems like reasonable scientists disagree on this issue. It is hard for me to know whether or not to trust the IPCC (ultimately this is a political institution). I don't know for a fact that the IPCC speaks for the "consensus." And even if the IPCC does speak for the consensus, there is the issue of quantity versus quality. I don't think I am qualified to make these judgments.
I don't like fear-mongering and I don't like politics. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. I trust Al Gore just as much as I trust George Bush. I wish there was a more open and honest debate.
Finally, IF GW is occuring AND humans are the cause, we are screwed. If you think our emissions are bad, wait until China and India go through their next phase of development.
i have shown you several. others have shown you several, as well. if you didn't read it the first time, i don't have time to go back and dig it up for you again. if i run accross something new, i will post it here. unlike you, i don't post articles that don't say anything new or different than has already been said.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
but i guess if wikipedia is what passes for peer-reviewed scientific publication in your book, then i shouldn't have any problem finding something that would qualify.:)
and for what its worth, if you do go back digging through those old posts, i think you will find that the first time the word "anthropogenic" appeared in this thread, it was in a post by arkansasbob.:icon_wink:
a man after my own heart. the only place my opinion differs is that i lean heavily toward the "man-made (using small words for salty:icon_wink: ) global warming is a myth" side. this is based on my limited knowledge of the subject and what the theory is based on, as well as my extensive knowledge of how difficult it is to model complex systems, even when you have control of most of the variables. also, if there is a debate and one side is trying to shut the other side up, there is a good chance that the side doing the shushing is wrong and knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
While I agree that this whole global warming thing could just be a lot of hot air, the very, very large chance that it isn't is enough reason to take significant action now to control CO2 emissions. The plain fact of the matter is that even if we stopped all human activities that contribute to CO2 emissions, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to go up for at least 50 or more years because of the additional amount that has been put into the carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So, those who want to take a chance that AGW isn't really happening probably don't understand how bad the consequences could be in 50 years (or less).
Is that why women don't let their husbands get a word in when arguing?Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I have heard of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Salty.....Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I've read all of those reviews long ago.
It's interesting (or maybe I should say revealing) that you went in and "cherry picked" only the review that gave you great support. BTW you could have also noted the one by D. Achtemichuk , which says about the same thing. Very interesting to note that both of them admitted to only reading a couple of chapters and then "skimmed".
With your ability to cherry pick the stuff that only suppports your view ( but then I guess that's what lawyers do) you could probably get a good job with the UN's IPCC Policy Committee. Cherry picking the support for a position ,after all , seems to be their only function.
BTW, McKittrick never pretended to be a formally trained climatologist. If you would read the whole book, you would see that the major focus is pointing out two major weak links in the GW mantra. 1. The shoddy methods used to "average" the measured data. McKittrick certainly has good credentials in this area. 2. The weaknesses and uncertainty that is inherent in the discretized climate models.
Salty....Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just refer to my last reply to you on McKittrick.....................
Not all women are like that. Some prefer that their husbands try to present well-reasoned arguments so they can continue their to display their superiority as long as possible. The wise husband just shakes his bowed head in agreement and act like it is all his fault. Women are emotional creatures and soon their emotions will change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Never use logic when arguing with a woman because it makes a man appear weak..
So, Bill, where do you see the climate 50 years from now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
Salty, you possibly just described the difference, in reasoning and debate styles, between the Conservatives/GOP and Liberals/DEMS with the women being the Liberals and the man being the Conservative. Substitute these in place of your man/husbands and women and tell me what you think. This is one reason that the Libs/Dems appeal to women and minorities as it tickles their strong emontional side versus logic and reasoning side of the brain. Likewise, I have found the modern day LIB/DEM men to be slightly feminine. That is not meant as an insult but just a strong change I have noticed happening the last 25+ years. I could expand on this further but for lack of time. And yes, I am serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You could probably do a entire thread on this subject.