okc, I think it may be helpful to explain why the IPCC is a good place for you to go to address your question. We should not expect you join a cargo cult and take somebody's conclusion at face value. Rather, if you look at the purpose of the IPCC, it is merely to summarize and assess the existing peer reviewed literature on climate change. Indeed it is true that diplomats have a hand in crafting the summaries for policymakers and the synthesis reports. Therefore, these summaries are not the proper place for you to go to answer your question. Instead you need to go to the full Working Group 1 report. The full report explains in great detail each aspect of the problem, and, most importantly, fully references every conclusion to a published paper in the peer reviewed literature.
So pick an aspect of the problem, such as infrared radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect, and find the relevant discussion in the report. In the case of the most recent report, this information is split between chapters 1 and 2 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf). Chapter 1 references the classic papers by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar and others. Chapter 2 explains the latest trends in greenhouse gas concentrations and the result of implementing radiative transfer theory in the latest numerical models. All completely referenced to peer reviewed articles. If so motivated, you can follow the entire development of the science over 150 years. Unfortunately, Chapter 2 has a tendency to reference the 2001 IPCC assessment report. But that report is also available free via the web and is fully referenced. Don't waste your time worrying about things like "consensus". The important point here is that if you do not agree with the IPCC's interpretation, no problem. Simply dig into the literature they have cited and make your own determination. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that you merely accept the policymakers summary at face value, but rather to appreciate that the full IPCC Working Group 1 report (at 1000+ pages) is the most concise, fully referenced summary of the existing literature on the subject of climate change. If you find a conclusion of the IPCC that you think is not supported by the literature (and some scientists have published such criticism in high-profile journals), then this forum might be a good place to bring it up. If the scientists here are honest, and I suspect they are, they will listen. But be prepared for some vigorous debate. You will have to come to terms with the fact that this science is not exact. This will become apparent if you truly do dig deeply into the literature cited in the full IPCC report. And especially if you jump to the chapter on attribution and try to test the hypothesis you originally posed about whether or not "global warming is irrefutably a predominantly anthropogenic process." The conclusion of the IPCC (which by the way only pegs the certainty of this at ~90%) depends on many measurements, some with quite poor levels of precision and accuracy, and numerical models, which employ many approximations. Therefore, to properly judge whether to accept the IPCC conclusion it is necessary to reflect on the imprecisions and approximations and make a judgment about whether or not they meet, in the aggregate, the 90% level of certainty cited by the IPCC. I think this already answers your question about "irrefutable proof" in the negative. However the question before the diplomats for whom the IPCC report was written is not whether or not anthropogenic climate change has been irrefutably proven. Rather it is whether or not there is a sufficient risk of dangerous anthropogenic climate change to warrant taking action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This is a different question altogether. Best, Eric On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 8, 12:04 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thank everyone for your responses. > > > I will look into the data presented when time permits. Like all of > > you, time is my most precious commodity. I am impressed with the > > materials I have seen, especially the IR portion. > > > Regards, > > > TA > > P.S. I hope those who have written hostile comments to me or suggest > that I am a troll are not involved in teaching or scientific research. > It's pretty obvious who the more mature and logical posters are in > this thread. Respect begets respect. Good scientists should encourage > skeptics and be ready to defend their work to anyone, anytime, > anywhere. Consensus is not science. > > I am merely a senior (read old) environmental chemist who has > questions that are unanswered by the literature.If this group > cannot...or will not... answer my questions, I will seek answers > elsewhere. > > I recommend this article for those who never knew or need to be > reminded how science is supposed to work: > > http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm > > I will post again after I have finished looking at the materials > presented to me earlier, probably tomorrow. > > > > > On Jan 8, 10:22 am, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dr. Connolley was pointing you to the references in the IPPC report. > > > > Look in the scientific literature on the matter. > > > > But why do we have to tell you this? Respectfully sir, it seems a > > > nobrainer. > > > > On Jan 4, 8:42 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Respectfully, sir, I am looking for data, not the opinion of the IPCC > > > > group or anyone else.I believe my understanding is a bit advanced for > > > > the Wiki level of science. As I posted above, I want verifiable, > > > > reproducible hard facts to plug into the Scientific Method to try to > > > > prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. My purpose is genuine, > > > > I assure you. I have stated one fact: that some warming has occurred > > > > globally in the past century or so. Now where do we go from here? No > > > > opinions, no politics but Facts: a.k.a. Science. > > > > > On Jan 4, 4:32 pm, "William Connolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On the off chance that you are really interested in information, then > > > > > the IPCC report of WGI is probably the best place to start, if you > > > > > want everything nicely backed up by refs to > > > > > papers:http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. > > > > > > If you want something more accessible, then wiki is > > > > > good:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming > > > > > > But if you just want to dismiss all sources you disagree with as > > > > > "political", then... there is no hope for you. > > > > > > -William > > > > > > On 04/01/2008, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > No, this "troll" would be satisfied if someone can make the case for > > > > > > A.G.W. using The Scientific Method. I would say the burden of proof > > > > > > exists with those who claim it exists, not those who do not. > > > > > > You have a problem with science being established the way science is > > > > > > supposed to be established? No stacked deck here. Just show me that > > > > > > your facts support the theory. It doesn't matter what you or I > > > > > > personally believe. No politics, no Real Climate and no anti-AGW > > > > > > sites. Not opinions, not consensus, these are not science. Pure > > > > > > facts > > > > > > that can reasonably prove a true scientific basis for A.G.W. Do I > > > > > > ask > > > > > > too much? Show a poor aging environmental chemist the great truths > > > > > > that you can reveal. > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 10:04am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, the other amusing thing about this particular troll is the > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > that evidence from "activist sites" (including RC!) doesn't count. > > > > > > > > "The deck is full of red deuces, so long as you ignore the black > > > > > > > cards, the picture cards and the numbers bigger than two and a > > > > > > > half, > > > > > > > all of which obviously have an agenda." Indeed. > > > > > > > > Still, a troll is a troll. No matter how sadly amusing this > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > challenge was, I think we really ought to provide one place where > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > conversation has moved on from the "global warming, misguided > > > > > > > myth or > > > > > > > vicious conspiracy" question. > > > > > > > > mt > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31 2007, 12:30am, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I defy anyone to prove to me that "global warming" is > > > > > > > > > irrefutably a > > > > > > > > > predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > > > > get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. > > > > > > > > > Please do > > > > > > > > > not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real > > > > > > > > > Climate. I > > > > > > > > > said irrefutable evidence, not politics.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > William M. Connolley |www.wmconnolley.org.uk|07985 935400- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
