Jonathan and Ecolog: Thank you for sending the attachments. While I am not a climatologist either, they appear to be excellent examples of well-conducted research. However, neither of them seem to get to the root of the matter--i.e., the amount of anthropogenic effect on global climate compared to the "background" or non-anthropogenic effects.
One thing about the papers that sprang out from the page was the LOCAL influence upon arctic climate indicators. This, it would seem, would need to be isolated or at least considered in any analysis of GLOBAL climate. Further, the paper indicates both the lack of data over a long period and the need for further research. For those interested, I have excerpted two statements from the Huntington, et al paper: "The examples presented in this paper suggest that human activity in the Arctic, particularly in combination with climate variation or change, has had large-scale impacts in the past, and has the potential for even greater impacts in the future. This conclusion, supported by both data and models, implies that the human activities and climate are inextricably linked and examining either one alone will produce misleading results, particularly as human activity increases. Future trajectories of development should be the subject of additional modeling and assessment work to develop well-grounded scenarios in the context of climate and arctic system models. (Note that we have not discussed the drivers of human activity that would need to be incorporated in any such modeling or scenario work, and which constitute a complex system in their own right.) [clip] "Whether and to what extent human activity in the Arctic can lead to large-scale biophysical impacts and consequent feedbacks to regional climate requires more study. Our initial analysis indicates that human activity is likely to be underestimated at present. In light of projections of future development, continuing to omit human activity from models and other assessments of change appears unwise. Of particular interest will be efforts to gather and analyze data that can provide a quantitative basis for the conceptual figures in this paper, thus quantifying human influences and allowing them to be incorporated in numerical models." WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Nelson To: Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Anthropogenic Belief and Evidence Re: [ECOLOG-L] Reference for % of scientists that think climate change is caused by humans? Wayne, The journal Climatic Change is an excellent resource in my view, but I'm not a climatologist. Many articles there address these questions. The following reference does not address your question, but I've found it very useful in exposing scientifically-minded people to (a) the complexity of the climate problem and (b) some of the possibilities available in terms of outcomes and policy options. The Arctic systems taken as a sort of "whole" are large enough that while interactions with global climate are still very complex, it's possible to envision the magnitude of the effects. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v071147673623610/ There's a great site associated with this paper, making the studies a little more accessible: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/indicators.shtml Since the link to the paper at the bottom of that page doesn't seem to work today, I've attached a casually highlighted version of the above (sorry for the visual interference). I've also attached another paper which may or may not have useful references. In the end, though, this brings us back to the problem of being "able to understand the conclusions and their foundations at any level and be able to follow the logic back through the analysis to the raw data." That's a tall order. I suspect it may not be possible to satisfy it. For example, neither of the papers above really addresses soot particulate interactions. One of our major problems right now, in my personal and undereducated view, is that no one person is capable of fully understanding the global climate. I would venture that one of the reasons we are so dependent on modeling is that it is really the only method available to us of integrating so much specialized knowledge into a coherent vision. We are at the mercy of the quality of our scientific process. Good luck, and please report back to ECOLOG-L if you find a great reference. Thanks! Jon On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: Ecolog: Can anyone refer me to data-supported and fully-referenced studies (rather than opinions) that define the balance (percent, ratio) of direct and indirect anthropogenic and non-human sources/causes of the various climate-changing factors (listed) together with mitigating factors and how they influence trends in climate change in terms of fluctuations and long-term trends of what might be called "greenhouse" and "nuclear winter" consequences? Such studies should be clearly enough presented that anyone, "scientist" or "non-scientist," should be able to understand the conclusions and their foundations at any level and be able to follow the logic back through the analysis to the raw data. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
