Dear Syed,

If the IPCC reports don't convince you, you are a pretty hardened skeptic.

My own opinion is that the scientific uncertainty regarding climate change is the biggest issue. The climate system is just too complex for the scientific community to get its hands around. At the same time we know with the next thing to certainty that anthropogenic CO2 at current and projected levels is a huge forcer of climate change. You can see that based on a simple, nearly back of the envelope, calculation. See Gilbert Masters' Environmental Science and Engineering textbook. It has a chapter based on a simple 1D globally averaged calculation. interestingly, Masters' simple calculation predicts about the same global warming as the mean of the much more complex models the IPCC uses.

An under-appreciated classic outlining the uncertainty issue is the National Research Council report Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. This report, chaired by Richard Alley, describes where the main uncertainties come from and what the policy implications of uncertainty are.  In essence, there are many poorly understood feedbacks in the climate system. The earth's climate system entered an unstable phase about 2.6 million years ago that brought us the ice age fluctuations, including the especially dramatic ones starting about 1 million years ago. The main ice ages are driven by rather small forcings based on the seasonal distribution of solar radiation. Superimposed on the main ice age fluctuations are a huge amount millennial and submillennial scale variation. This is a very dangerous system to mess around with on the scale that we are doing so.

See also Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Oreskes and Conway describe how wealthy interest groups manufacture "scientific" doubt about important issues that threaten their businesses. 

Best, Pete

Dear KMT

Thanks for your response. Well, the question has been formulated with care and is explicit enough not to permit any ambiguity. By "authentic published work" we mean that the contents are genuine, can withstand rigorous scrutiny and be free from subjective speculations. We need to filter out Anthropogenic factors alone which impact Climate Change.

Visit the website below. This may be helpful to you. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Hi Shankar

I am aware of the link you provided, but thanks anyway. One should be careful about going through these links as they are meant for the consumption of business Executives. Greenhouse Gas has been found as the prime driver of Climate Change in fascinating graphic animations, but the real contribution of humans has not been recognized !

IPPC has more than 400 published scientific articles,  with more than 98% of confidence. Look at the reports and read  the related articles. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Thanks KMT and Edwin for your response. I have not read all reports and articles prepared under IPPC for which Al Gore and Pachauri had to share Nobel Prize but mounting criticism of  a few inquiring minds forced them to replace Global Warming with Climate Change. Younger generation of scientists have to exercise an independent judgement in assessing such reports and not be carried away by numerical strength of believers or disbelievers including the so called percentage of confidence.

Dear KMT

I appreciate your feedback ! Nobody has provided even a single publication which can make us answer my question in affirmative! 

Dear Syed,

If the IPCC reports don't convince you, you are a pretty hardened skeptic.

My own opinion is that the scientific uncertainty regarding climate change is the biggest issue. The climate system is just too complex for the scientific community to get its hands around. At the same time we know with the next thing to certainty that anthropogenic CO2 at current and projected levels is a huge forcer of climate change. You can see that based on a simple, nearly back of the envelope, calculation. See Gilbert Masters' Environmental Science and Engineering textbook. It has a chapter based on a simple 1D globally averaged calculation. interestingly, Masters' simple calculation predicts about the same global warming as the mean of the much more complex models the IPCC uses.

An under-appreciated classic outlining the uncertainty issue is the National Research Council report Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. This report, chaired by Richard Alley, describes where the main uncertainties come from and what the policy implications of uncertainty are.  In essence, there are many poorly understood feedbacks in the climate system. The earth's climate system entered an unstable phase about 2.6 million years ago that brought us the ice age fluctuations, including the especially dramatic ones starting about 1 million years ago. The main ice ages are driven by rather small forcings based on the seasonal distribution of solar radiation. Superimposed on the main ice age fluctuations are a huge amount millennial and submillennial scale variation. This is a very dangerous system to mess around with on the scale that we are doing so.

See also Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Oreskes and Conway describe how wealthy interest groups manufacture "scientific" doubt about important issues that threaten their businesses. 

Best, Pete

The most compelling evidence is the physical properties of CO2, in particular is spectrum of absorption of IR radiation. All the rest flows from that. See Masters' chapter. 

Dear Peter

Thanks a lot for your enlightening feedback. You are probably right that I am a pretty hardened skeptic, as no soft options are made available to me. Do you have access to any quantified data to support your rather sweeping remark: "anthropogenic CO2 at current and projected levels is a huge forcer of Climate Change". Instead of deviating from the core issue be kind enough to furnish concrete evidence of Human contribution in bringing about Climate Change.

Syed

Although I believe that the IPCC scientists are probably correct I have three nagging concerns.  The first is that in the long term ice core records showing correlation of CO2 and temperature there is a general pattern by which temperature changes appear to precede slightly (by 800 years??) the increase in CO2.  Should the temperature change be due to Milankovich cycles, solar cycles,  patterns of explosive vulcanism or something else then the increase temperatures may cook the CO2 out of the soil;  2)  CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas; water vapor is.  As I understand it the IPCC models get only one quarter of their warming from CO2 increases, which then force an increase in water vapor to get the full effect.  I have not seen this explained satisfactorily.  Why would not increase water vapor enter into a positive feedback loop?   3)  Volcanoes (going back to H H Lamb) clearly influence climate by forcing cooling, but have been quiescent of late.   What would happen if explosive volcanism went back to normal? 

Clearly climate is changing, it always has.   Clearly it is warming over the past 100 years and since the 1400s.   But is it warming due to increasing CO2?  Probably, but by how much? 

Can anyone answer my questions with real science and not defensiveness? 

Hi Syed, I first of all admired your courage for comming out with the simple question that most of us were shy to ask...I have been following the debate for some time and by now I think that we can focus on the following elements: the solar activity and position of the sun within the galaxy (See Shaviv and Veizer, blog); the interaction  temperature - CO2 and not around; which leaves us with our question of the real effect of human activity and the responsibility of mankind. Geologists are acquainted with volcanism, as well as with all the elemnts that trigger mass extinctions. Let's observe and keep our mind open !

Kenneth's answer is of a genuine scientific nature. I highly appreciate this kind of approach. 

Does somebody know more about the acidification of the oceans, as reported by some, and how this affects limestone deposition ? 

I am learning lots of new facts from this discussion. Often we have heard only one side of the climate change discussion. Thanks, Syed for posting this challenging question and Thanks, Dr. Kenneth Towe, for posting some important and interesting facts and research citations. I always read your posts with interest.

Dear Colleagues Charles, Francis and Susantha

I wish to draw your attention to the original citation of Nobel Committee (December 10, 2007) which awarded Nobel Peace Prize to IPCC (shared by Gore Jr. and Pachauri): "..for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made Climate Change, and to lay the foundation for measures that are needed to counteract such change".

IPCC scientists are of repute but somehow due to some unknown reasons their interpretations partly went wrong and attracted criticism from various quarters. Charles, I share your nagging concerns. CO2 cannot be correlated with temperature fluctuations - something missing! We also do not know which factor/s caused temperature change. You are absolutely right that CO2 is not the prime greenhouse gas but water vapor is. Has someone tried to incorporate this in a model and understand water vapor cycle. We need to focus on Man-made factors inducing global warming.

Thanks again for the valuable information, including the paper in Nature. As to the Noble Peace Prize, we must bear in mind that this particular prize has more than once been given for the good will of the receivers, not the final achievement that in the end was often lagging behind the original intention...

Kenneth et al.

Maybe you can help me understand how the IPCC model works.   As I understand it, and elaborating on my previous comments,  the CO2 effect in the model generates only about 20-25 % of the warming impact.  If it were ONLY CO2 warming alone (which I think is real and straightforward--it is the same as measured in the lab by  Tyndall and Arrhenius a century and a half ago ) then there would be relatively little concern. BUT in the model the CO2 warming causes an increase in water vapor, enhancing the CO2 effect by about a factor of 4, and most of the warming.  The amount of CO2 increase is caused (in the model) by the general correlation between temperature and the atmosphere's ability to hold water vapor.  So if the CO2- driven increase in temperature causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, why does not the ensuing 4 times greater increase in temperature caused by the water vapor then cause EVEN MORE water vapor to enter the atmosphere in a positive feedback loop???  

Charles

You at least got me by surprise because I never realised thsi enigma

Googled for quite a while and came up with this that is not directly digestable for me but I will give it repeated tries

http://climatephys.org/2012/07/31/the-water-vapor-feedback-and-runaway-greenhouse/

Ken

(It is not a paper) it will take me a week to digest it I guess

ken

Syed, Pl have a look at these papers. More on my RG site.. Best,

Conference Paper Separation of climate and anthropogenic influences on Columb...

Article Distinguishing human and climate influences on hydrological ...

Article Human and climate impacts on Columbia River hydrology and salmoids

Article Jay, D.A. and P.K. Naik (2002). Separating human and climate...

Conference Paper Distinguishing human and climate-induced contributions to th...

Hi Pradeep

Your publications are very important  for Columbia River dynamics but we are talking about sole human factors contributing to global Climate Change.

Best.

Syed

Hi Pradeep and Syed, I was pleased to learn that it is possible to distinguish between natural causes (warming) and human intervention (engineering) in the case of Salmonid life. I wish one could distinguish equally between different causes of climate change.  

A FurureLearn MOOC "Causes of Climate Change" run by the University of Bergen has just started and is free to join.

This lesson https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/causes-of-climate-change/1/steps/43979 describes feedbacks in the atmosphere as does the one that follows it.

I'll just mention that the feedback driving water vapour depends on the level of humidity. At the current level, Bergen say the feedback from water vapour will double the temperature rise from CO2. At higher temperatures and hence higher humidities the feedback factor increases, and the  water vapour will quadruple the temperature rise. If the feedback factor exceeds 100% then we will have a runaway warming, as happened at the start and end of the Younger Dryas, but it will halt when enough clouds have formed to reduce the incoming solar radiation to prevent further warming - a bit like the situation on Venus!

Alastair

Please provide a reference for the runaway feedback at start end end of the YD

The start is a rapid cooling and what was the trigger and why was there then such a rapid decrease in atmospherc water vapour?

All I have read is that it was the reduction in the AMOC / gulfstream triggered by drainage of ice lakes at the edge of the NA icefields

Broecker, Wallace S. ‘Abrupt Climate Change Revisited’. Global and Planetary Change 54, no. 3 (2006): 211–15.   Wally, an oceanographer, of course sticks with his idea that the THC was that caused the cooling, but it makes more sense to me that it was the sea ice which paused the THC. In other words, which was the cause and which the effect?  

Harry,

There is a description here of the Younger Dryas:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

which contains this Fig 6 of temperature:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data4-climate-changes-lg.gif

"Figure 6.Climate changes associated with the Younger Dryas, highlighted here by the light blue bar, include (from top to bottom): cooling and decreased snow accumulation in Greenland, cooling in the tropical Cariaco Basin, and warming in Antarctica. Also shown is the flux of meltwater from the Laurentide Ice Sheet down the St. Lawrence River. Sources: Alley (2000), Lea et al. (2003), EPICA (2004), Licciardi et al. (1999)."

Whereas the cooling at the start of the YD could be put down to the flux of melt water, it does not explain the rapid warmings at the start of the B-O interstadial at 15,000 bp nor that at the start of the Holocene i.e end of YD. But all 3 are runaway events.

I trust the three references in the figure caption are sufficient for your needs but I will include another which agrees with me that it was the sea-ice which had the main effect.

There could have been several triggers for the cooling and the expansion of sea ice. First flow of fresh water through the St Lawrence, second an asteroid impact in North America, or three, my choice, opening of the Bering Strait which allowed fresher water from the Pacific into the saline Arctic. The warming events occurred when the combination of increasing solar radiation due to the Milankovitch cycles, and the rising CO2 passed a tipping point and triggered the melt of the sea ice. Without the sea ice to seal it in, water vapour could evaporate from the warmer sea surface.

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

Ken,

I was answering the question asked me by Harry, but the retreat of the sea-ice in the Arctic is probably the most obvious evidence of the effect of man-made greenhouse gases.

But, in return, I am puzzled by your remark: "BTW... In the late Eocene CO2 was ~1500 ppm. When it dropped back to ~800 ppm the Antarctic ice sheet began to form." What has that got to do with "anthropogenic factors", or global warming for that matter?

If a reduction in CO2 leads to cooling, then surely that is evidence that an increase in CO2 will lead to warming.

Alastair

I asked for references for the runaway effect of ater VAPOUR in the atmosphere.

You present your idea as the best alternative to a world expert like Wally Broecker. Then where is your idea peened down so we can read and appreciate it?

Ken,

There was no Arctic sea ice in the Eocene, nor was there an ice sheet on Greenland, and probaly no West Antarcic ice sheet either. They only formed during the start of the Pleistocene ice age when CO2 dropped below 400 ppm, the level it is at now.

It seems to me that the most vocal politicians are those on the right who think, like you, that global warming is a scam.  I can't see them allowing any action to prevent the disaster we face. Global warming is the elephant in the room in California which, once was the foodbasket of the US, and is now heading to become a desert.

The Syrian civil war was caused by drought which sent the starving into the cities where they rioted for food. The worst effects of global warming are already apparent but even with the Govenor of the Bank of England warning that insuracne claims for natural disaters have tripled,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34396961

and the pope attesting "the impacts of climate change—a hotter climate, increasingly acidic oceans, and more extreme weather—threaten to cripple the global food supply, thereby thrusting more families into poverty and starvation.", US Republicans are unmoved.

http://news.yahoo.com/despite-popes-pleas-congress-resists-action-climate-change-172721403.html

The US may be the world leader, but it is leading us to disaster.

Held, Isaac M., and Brian J. Soden. 2000. ‘Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming 1’. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25 (1): 441–75. which is obtainable from NOAA at: https://fms.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/annrev00.pdf     On page 447 they write: "If the value of H2O were larger than unity, the result would be a runaway greenhouse. " They continue "It is, of course, self-evident that the Earth is not in a runaway configuration."  But it was when the Younger Dryas ended!

Harry,

Sorry, I should have explained that I was not thinking about a "runaway" of the size of that is believed to have occurred on Venus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

I am just talking about times when the positive factor was greater than 1, and there was an abrupt change.

Here is a reference describing the positive feedback effect of water vapour:

Dear Alastair

Please stay focused on "anthropogenic factors" causing Climate Change and discussions of purely academic nature and not political. It must be admitted, however, that many serious-minded and reputed scientists in the past produced nothing substantial which could withstand scientific scrutiny. Best thing would be to use your own head and critically evaluate evidences produced and we may reap the grain of truth for sure.

Best

Syed 

Alistair

Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source. On the contrary, it is easily shown by comparing entries in different languages that whoever thinks to be familiar with the subject jots something down from memory

Runaway: the Younger Dryas is the evidence that after a catastrophe the climate returns to "normal".

You came up with the increase in water vapour and the Younger Dryas

I asked you for references. This is still my question to you

Harry,

That Wikipedia article has twenty references to peer reviewed papers and books. Do I really have to copy and paste them into here, or are you willing to read the Wikipedia article and putting your prejudices aside?

What is normal? The hot house world of the dinosaurs, the ice box world 20ka ago of the last glacial maximum, or the Holocene when civilisation suddenly flourished?

As explained above, the last time CO2 was above 400 ppm in the Pliocene http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo724.html  there were fewer ice sheets and sea level was never less than 25 m higher.

Dwyer, G.S., and M.A. Chandler, 2009: Mid-Pliocene sea level and continental ice volume based on coupled benthic Mg/Ca palaeotemperatures and oxygen isotopes. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 367, 157–168, doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0222.http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/dw01000b.html

If you take the Pliocene as normal then what happens to the port cities with a >25 m sea level rise.

No-one had humidity meters at the end of the Younger Dryas but the dust that was being being deposited on the snow and found its way into the ice cores suddenly reduced implying  wetter climate http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v339/n6225/abs/339532a0.html

Syed,

You asked "Are there authentic published work confidently pinpointing the sole anthropogenic factors contributing to Climate Change? "  The answer is yes, the IPCC reports, however they are not 100% confident - only >95%. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ It is not possible to be 100% certain. Darwin's theory of evolution has never been proved!

If you do not want to wade through the three reports each over 1000 pages long then you can read the Synthesis Report, but even that it is not  for the faint hearted :-(

It is usually assumed that global warming is made up of two components - natural and anthropogenic - which are additive, but the natural forcing may be negative. Its main driver is the Milankovitch cycles which are now driving us back into a glacial period. Moreover, a negative natural forcing would explain the recent hiatus in global temperatures.

The anthropogenic factors affecting climate are mainly the increase in CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels,land use ( the destruction of forests), and cement manufacture.

But, returning to politics, if we cease burning fossil fuels then the global economy would collapse - imagine a world with no auto-mobiles, no factories, and no electricity, all powered by fossil fuels.. This is an issue where the scientists bury their heads and claim it is not their concern! They only warn, it is up to the politicians to sort that out.

Alistair

You are more or less resulting! I have studied the Younger Dryas for quite some time and do not need such a reference mind you

I asked you for references on the connection of the water vapour multiplier and the Younger Dryas

And in addition:

With "normal" I was referring to the temperature trend in the milennia before and after the big freeze; I did not mention CO2.

As for "resulting" in my previous entry I meant insulting. That is a typo made by the Dutch spelling corrector that is apparently associated with my Research-Gate address

Alistair

How are we going to mitigate or fight Climate change without distinctly recognizing the human induced component? What you suggest suits Politicians not scientific rationale!

Best

Syed 

Syed

I support Alistair, but like to stress that only ONE report matters

This is the report of WG1 of IPCC. This is a SCIENTIFIC report with a review of the literature on anthropogenic and natural Climate Change and a summary in which the likelihood of an anthropogenic effect on a given climate parameter is given

I ask you: did you read it, or at least the TECHNICAL summary:

WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT; CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf

ONLY  127 pages including tables and figures

When Alastair asked "If one takes the Pliocene as normal then what happens to the port cities with a >25 m sea level rise?", he effectively mentioned the painful truth for later mankind. Harry in Holland already lives partially behind defensive dikes and that model might well be the only working  one until the next ice age, whether man sacrifices or not on the altar of the new cult,  

Ken

You (intentionally?) mis interpreted my response to the entry of Alistair

My issue is that the answer is not in the WHOLE of the IPCC report but in ONE report viz the report with subtitle PHYSICAL BASIS of 1000 pages

THen there is the possibility for the ignorant to first read the TECHNICAL summary

Pray tell did YOU?? 

Syed,

I am not sure what you mean by "human induced component". Do you mean the anthropogenic part of climate change? I listed the components of that component and suggested that they may be contributing to over 100% of global warming!

Or do you mean how we as animals will grow our populations until the food supply runs out, as predicted by Thomas Malthus? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population and references therein. Of course Malthus has not been proved correct - yet.

Or perhaps you mean the related problem that in the Western World we believe that economic growth is essential, and it can only at present be achieved by burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels.

Or do you mean human greed where we in the west are burning an unfair share of the fossil fuels, so not only depriving developing countries of their benefits but also our children and their descendant?.

Finally, perhaps you mean how do we persuade humanity to curb their emissions. That question was answered by Stephen Schneider in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.

He wrote:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both"

Unless the public are scared then no action will be taken (by the politicians). People do not react of logical arguments, always thinking that the logic may be flawed. They only react of emotional arguments, and fear is the most powerful of these. It is not a matter of exaggerating. It is that we have to be open about the worst case. That is where the danger lies, about which the public should be informed, not our best guess which is liable to subjective bias.

But perhaps you mean something entrely different by "human factor".

Cheers, Alastair

Ken

Again, my response was to the advice of Alistair to the questioner to read the FULL ippc-report AR5 of 3000 pages.

And to get the flavour one starts reasing the TECHNICAL summary of the 1st report and certainly not the Summary for policy makers.

Only the 1st report is on the physics the other 2 are sociological/plotical

And to get the flavour one starts reasing the TECHNICAL summary of the 1st report and certainly not the Summary for Policy Makers.

The conclusions in the 1st report are with CONFIDENCE level

This is exactly what the questioner asks for in his question:

"Are there authentic published work CONFIDENTLY pinpointing the sole anthropogenic factors contributing to Climate Change?"

Syed,

You wrote "It is, therefore, of paramount importance ... to plan efficient strategy to mitigate it."  The IPCC working group 3 report deals with mitigation of climate change.  The problem is that now after 5 of these reports, the governments have still failed to take any meaningful action.

What would the meaningful action have to consist of? 

Francis,

A global carbon tax would be a start, even if it was only on aviation fuel. Currently it is cheaper to travel by aeroplane than railway because aviation fuel is not taxed.

A ban on all new oil wells (e.g. in the Arctic) and coal fields wauld also help.

Carbon capture and storage would also help, but the British government has refused to subsidise tow projects which have been proposed.

In the Technical Summary of the Report from Working Group III of the IPCC AR5

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_technical-summary.pdf

it says:

"Climate change is a global commons problem that implies the

need for international cooperation in tandem with local,

national, and regional policies on many distinct matters."

But there is no sign that the US will agree to binding international agreements, and the China refused to agree to one at the Copenhagen conference.

Kenneth,

Today is not really appropriate for you to claim climate change is not happening when this is being reported: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/05/the-meteorology-behind-south-carolinas-catastrophic-1000-year-rainfall-event/

Alistair

I fully support Ken

Climate Change is not a fluke of the day. It means by definition long-term change.

You refer to IPCC: there you can find that the likelihood of adverse weather situations may increase in FUTURE with further warming

Harry-

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking. I suggest you read "Encyclopaedia of Ignorance" (Pergamon Press, 1977).

In fact the subtle difference between Weather and Climate has not been properly registered by you and Alastair -  Climate is a long term pattern of Weather in a specified local area ! A solitary episode of rainfall event you communicated to KMT as a sign of Climate change is grossly erroneous. Misconceived ideas fed into the supercomputers are going to give us highly magnified version of faulty results. 

Alastair -

I appreciate your interest in the science of Climate change. However, I would like to respond to your interesting queries: Anthropogenic word was deliberately used in my Question to suggest for example Anthropogenic CO2, which is directly produced by human activity such as burning of fossil fuels -spacecraft, ships, vehicles, agriculture, building materials etc. and NOT by processes of respiration and decay etc. Human activity suggests more or less the same shade of meaning. What does "meaningful action" means in mitigating Climate Change? I do not know who initially suggested the role of CO2 as the main greenhouse gas causing Climate change. What a blunder. Among other greenhouse gases, water vapor is far more effective greenhouse gas. The entire story of Climate change is based on CO2, which is now much politicized and basically serves commercial interests than Science. The "Raw data" as suggested by KMT for IPCC reports is much relevant today. Moreover, what is the concrete basis of calculating "Confidence level". Bringing in Mathusian principle here is simply superfluous. Stephen Schneider is to be blamed for inventing a recipe to arouse human passion, painting Alarmists' pet scheme of dramatic statements, creating scare, massive media coverage, hiding truth. This is unethical and essence of Inconvenient Truth and the results are for everyone to see - richer nations getting richer at the cost of underdeveloped nations, despite much rhetoric. 

Obama commented: I have no time for Climate deniers ! We scientists have no time for junk science ! Basic Physics of Greenhouse effect can explain as to how the planet is warming, and yet some suggest that some feedback loops actually cool it. However, in post Industrial revolution era the warming does not match with increasing greenhouse gases. So how was climate changing for thousands of year without humans contributing almost nothing to the budget of greenhouse gases? We need to understand the Ice, water and water vapor cycle and the dynamics of solar radiation including its orbital characteristics, as primary driver of climate change. IPCC suggests that Arctic sea ice has fallen , whereas in Antarctica it has increased !  What a contradiction. There is no link between predicted global warming and enhanced Carbon emissions. There is no plausible explanation for a pause in global warming for the last couple of years. Geothermal events including volcanic aerosols have to be included in the climate modeling. What we need to do is to mitigate POLLUTION in the Air, land, sea and space and largely bank on renewable source of energy - natural Climate change would happen as and when and we cannot control it. Unfortunately, IPCC is prone to political intervention, where good science cannot be done. It has suffered severe credibility several times. Don't we remember the report of 2007, wherein it was claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 ! The mounting criticism later led to hasty retreat by IPCC.

Syed

Syed, thanks for your well written reply that summarises well the essence of our theme, without passion and with much respect.  

Harry,

Climate is average weather, and when climate changes then weather also changes. If you dismiss every extreme event as a fluke and leave it out of the average then of course climate does not change. Or to put it another way, what you are doing is dismissing the events which provide the evidence that climate is changing. 

Kenneth has just started a new thread "Assessing climate change?" where he is asking where global warming has caused the most damage and suffering. That  is unscientific because the answers will be subjective. it depends on whether you think those events were caused by climate change. If you think that flooding which only happens once in 1000 years has not been made worse by climate change then you are bound to answer climate change has had no effect. If you think that global warming has not caused forests to dry out and become tinder dry, then you will believe it is fire bugs which have caused the forest fires in California, Australia, Greece, France and Croatia.

By the time the evidence for climate change becomes indisputable it will be too late to stop the worst disasters. In fact they will be already happening! But even worse will follow because by then the climate will be beyond our control.

Syed,

Thanks for your long answer. I am afraid I cannot reciprocate since I am busy with other matters. However, I do now understand your point of view.

Water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but its concentration depends on global temperature.  Thus if we warm the globe slightly with CO2 water vapour will increase and amplify that warming. Moreover, the aditional waming from the greenhouse effect of water vapour will produce even more water vapour in what is called a positive feedback efffect. This is not some weird effect though tup by me. It is well known and can even be found in Wikipedia and the IPCC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm .

You wrote "Don't we remember the report of 2007, wherein it was claimed that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 ! The mounting criticism later led to hasty retreat by IPCC." That was found to be a typing error.  The 2035 should have read 2350.  Moreover, no-one had read it so there was no panic. It took an overzealous scientist to point it out and bring it to every one's notice.

Anyway, can't you see that if the West to go on burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels then they will deprivie developing countries of their share of a finite resource in the future?

Syed

Worse than an illusion of science is the ilusion of reading someone's entry and then in your response quote the wrong wording?!

Yes Ken,

What caused the fires? Was it the hot dry weather or was it the firebugs? You say firebugs I say hot weather. Let's call the whole thing off!

Harry-

Would you kindly point out where the wrong wording is? Moreover, I quoted about illusion of Knowledge not Science. Please be outright crisp in your comments and do not deviate from the real substance of the Question asked.

Alastair-

Thanks for your understanding. Would you kindly provide a link which can prove that the mention of the year 2035 was a typographical error. In fact even before the report was published, some experts had already warned in 2006 not to go ahead with publication, but Alarmists went ahead with publication. This was an epic and possibly deliberate blunder and not a typing error! This was widely covered by media (See Cogley et al. (2010): Tracking the Source of Glacier Misinformation (2010): Science, 327(5965): 522. Himalayan glaciers are in good shape and stable (see Bahuguna et al. (2014): Are Himalayan glaciers retreating? Curr. Sci., 106(7), 1008-1013. When you are not so busy give it a cool and serene thought instead of hurriedly giving twisted facts. Best.

Syed

Syed

I repeat you do not read what responders write and now your only reaction is on an irrelevant typo of mine?!

Stick to what: weather is not climate was my entry

Syed,

The overzealous scientist I was referring to was Copley of your first reference. It is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Kargel/publication/41173786_Tracking_the_Source_of_Glacier_Misinformation/links/0912f50db974e4051b000000.pdf

It says : "A bibliographic search suggests that the second WG-II sentence is copied inaccurately from (8), in which the predicted date for shrinkage of the world total from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 is 2350, not 2035."

Article Tracking the Source of Glacier Misinformation

Syed

Now you got me really going

Your own UNclarities: in the title of your question

1. ARE there any WORK (BTW, meaning what: a publication  report)

2. What does it mean "SOLE" anthropogenic

Subtitle

3. What do you mean with "geologically recent" phenomenon

4. Discretely: silently?

Harry-

How did you manage to answer my Question without properly understanding it? Never mind here are clarifications:

1. Authentic Publications, Reports.

2. "Sole" means exclusive or separate contribution by Anthropogenic activities.

3. Geologically recent appearance of humans hence Anthropogenic activity, specially post-Industrial revolution causing Climate Change.

4. Discretely means distinctly or separately.

Since now you have clarifications at hand, I would love to have your answers afresh in the backdrop of the question asked. But please check your spellings before posting.

Best

Syed

Alastair-

How do you fail to distinguish between "typing error" and "copied inaccurately"? Typing error could be caused by anyone on his own but there has to be an external source for copying ! As a counter argument you had to reproduce the link supplied by me (Cogley et al. 2010 - misspelled by you as "Copley" the overzealous scientist). Neither it was a "typing error" nor your alleged claim can be supported that .."no-one had read it so there was no panic". Want to do little Sherlock Holmes and find out the truth? Read the link provided, which says that Cogley (op.cit) does not mention that an Indian Environment Magazine was likely the source that IPCC copied and pasted. Would love to hear from you.

Best

Syed

P.S. Some problem uploading the link> "Anatomy of IPCC's Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035 by Banerjee and Collins (2010)". Yale Climate Connections.

Syed,

my misspelling of Cogley's name was not deliberate, nor do I believe that the miscopying of 2350 was deliberate either.

Syed

You area very bad reader of your this whole eseaunce of entries as reponse to your question:

only once I addressed you indirectly; other comments were directed to the other responders

This was in the form of a sub-advice to that of Alistair and related to  "Authentic" work:

to read the AR5-report of IPCC: that has hundereds of references to peer-reviewed publications on Climate Change and in its review provides estimates on the likelihood of anthropogenic influences

Here a first DIRECT question to you then: DID you read it or at least the

TECHNICAL SUMMARY

and if so why do you ask for Authentic work

BTW: what do you actually mean with AUTHENTIC: who is to judge its reliablity: in an earlier response it seems it is YOU?

Syed

re your direct question to me:

1. "I would love to have your answers afresh in the backdrop of the question asked"

Here my direct repsonse:  read the AUTHENTIC AR5 report by WG1: the Physical Basis

2 "But please check your spellings before posting":

apologies happened again in previous entry: researchgate corrects the English to Dutch in I have to indeed recheck it

Harry-

1. Since you insisted I had to again go through IPCC AR5/WG1 report (June 07, 2013). It runs into hundreds of pages and is marked "Confidential" - Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute ! It is loaded with acronyms, and percentage of CONFIDENCE/LIKELIHOOD. I have long stopped being impressed with sophisticated color charts and fancy sentences. With full honesty and without being biased or prejudiced, I can assure you that whatever I have read is genuine and mostly peer reviewed data but the INTERPRETATION smells of Cock-n-Bull story and the assertions are not backed by evidence. Examples:

"It is very likely that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 results in gradual acidification of the Ocean".

"There is very high confidence that the atmospheric CH4 increase during Industrial era is caused by anthropogenic activities."

"Over the 21st Century there is a very high Confidence that the anthropogenic radiative forcing will increase".

"All of these changes in the Cryosphere been linked to anthropogenic forcings".

2. Harry it's confusing what you say "researchgate corrects the English to Dutch. Must be other way round but would expect your answers to free from errors and acronyms.

So one direct question to you now: Climate has been changing for million of years, so how does the appearance of humans on planet Earth is claimed to be driver alone or in conjunction with natural Forcing? My Question clearly asks for the sole Anthropogenic induced factors causing Climate Change. Since you have read the entire report would you please provide reference.

Best

Syed

Syed

CO2

Syed

Science is NOT 100% confidence: give me ONE example?!

Harry-

That's Hilarious! ONE EXAMPLE: Scientists can say with 100% confidence that planet Earth has a solitary natural Satellite (Moon).

Best

Syed

Ken

I am talking about science which means that there is a why involvd and thus a a "theory" not just observations like the questioner thinks: there is a moon

The science is why is there a moon, why it moving around the earth why at that disctance etc

As for the weather the plain remark tomorrow is different from today is pseudo science in the sense that is based on milennia of knowledge but what has science to do with this; the science is to project with a theory on meteorology what is coming tomorrow on the basis of what there is today

Harry-

With due respect may I take the liberty of reminding you that we are having a very serious conversation concerning the role of humans in causing Climate Change. Therefore let us focus on this and not deviate from the core theme.

Harry, with careful observations and experimental results a Theory/Hypothesis is formulated and as new Technologies and Thoughts emerge, a Hypothesis is elevated to Theory or if not supported by new data, then it is replaced or rejected. You are absolutely right that Science asks for Questions - WHY? So Why 97%-98% scientists confidently believe that Climate Change is caused by Anthropogenic activities? Climate Science is a complex Science requiring extraordinary insight to understand it. Let Scientists of IPCC come out and explain this question. It may be registered that a "good reason" may be the cause of falsification of the proposed hypothesis.

You say that Weather is a "pseudoscience". It is akin to "Astrology" which makes testable predictions but also admits that predictions sometimes failed. In contrast, "Astronomy" is a genuine Science committed to puzzle solving abilities and has plausible answers to your questions about Earth and Moon.

It would indeed be tragic, if we continue to make Climate Science based on Probabilistic Theory as equivalent of "Astrology". Likelihood and Confidence metrics indicate lack of confidence coupled with intention of cover up, in scientists themselves and the subject they undertake for research. Don't you think that we may soon talk about replacing Climate Change by  much simpler and realistic phrase "Mitigating Environmental Pollution"?

Best

Syed

Syed

I agree with you to be serious but I did not start withe the platitude that 100% of the scientists are confident that there is a moon: nothing to do with climatology

When you think that climatology should not be a based on probabilistic then give us your alternative(s)

And I did NOT write anywhere that weather is pseudo-science: please show me if you think otherwise

Your popperian idea of a theory is fullly obsolete or should I say not applicable in the realm of applied science.

It is your stetment that Astronomy is a GENUINE science: what does that mean?

It explains the presence of the Earth and the Moon from what basic theory?

You ask why 97-98% of scientists confidently believe that CC is caused by Anthropogenic activities and then say that IPCC-scientists should come out and explain this question

AGAIN my basic question for YOU: did you take the time/effort to read the WG1 report of IPCC-AR5 Then you would not ask the question you repeat again

A scientist is first of all precise and criticises a report on concrete conclusions

These you find in the AR5 report of WG1 with of course likilhoods becaseu climatology is an applied science.

I think with Syed that we may better soon replace Climate Change by realistic  "Mitigating Environmental Pollution"?

 Also, Ken's Late Eocene example appeals more to a geologist, than the present times "scientists" various degrees of "confidence".

Ken

I agree with you that of the 98% of "scientists" manyif not most were outside of the field of climatology and indeed not peers.

As for your remark that "it is not at all clear how much natural events have added as well (to the extra CO2)"

What do you mean here: in the lasr 60 years there is an increase of more than a third. What natural events do that? and where is the geological counterpart?

Ken

This agrees with what I wrote but then up to 2015 with my gusetimate of 1/3?!

Forgot to ask you for an answer to my question re an earlier statement of yours that this increase in such a short time occurs thru natural sources?

PS the 280 ppm is the natural long-term status quo / equilibrium between sources and sinks

Ken

It is a dynamic equilibrium wiht natural sources and sinks giving 280 ppm and the natural sourcesd continue to emit; but there is an increasing anthropogenic source while the sink term remains the same; hence the concentration is rapidly accumulating

The exchange of CO2 with the deep-sea and of course with the biota and weatherin'; but these are also the sources for CO2 so that the atmospheric concnetration is around 280. Mankind is now an extra source term and there is no anthropogenic sink term hence the equlibirum shifts to higher atmospheric concnetrations with a current rate of say 3-4 ppm annuallly. Rather like basic chemistry of equilibria with forward and backward reactions.