I feel medicine claiming to be a science with all of its unscientific warts is unfair to science. If you work in medical research, you will have a doctor as a PI and his primary interest will be ethics and health service, not science, and the doctor will most likely not have training in a scientific discipline.

Vis a vis sea level rise - it is painful to be forbidden to use google, which I think of less as a website than as a third hemisphere, but off the top of my head I can tell you that in the geological record, we can see sea level fluctuating from 120 meters lower than it is today, to 300 meters higher than it is today. Given that we're getting increases in global levels of greenhouse gases that are unprecedented in their rapidity, we really don't know what is going to happen. We could deal with a 10 m rise or a 20 m rise, if it were spread out over four or five centuries, but we can't deal with a 100m rise; that would be the end of anything recognizable as Western civilization.

Now, as best I can recall, the mean projection for sea level change for the next century is less than 5m. (Is it 1m? 3m? Idrc. I don't even know if I'm thinking of projections for 2100, or projections for 2113.) The important thing to remember is that this is a mean projection. Already, a 1m rise in sea levels is going to be pretty severe, since most dense population centers, industrial activity, commercial activity clusters around natural harbors. So we have a lot of people living close to sea level in the developed world, and many more living on river deltas at sea level in the developing world. But we shouldn't be worried about the mean projection. If we cross paths on a dark sidewalk in the middle of the night and I ask you if you can help me with something, your mean projection is that I'm a nice man who's out on a walk; what worries you is the small chance that I'm about to beat you up and steal your wallet. But getting your wallet stolen isn't really that bad, although I'm sure if it has ever happened to you, you thought the world was ending. Even flooding displacing millions of people in Bangladesh wouldn't be that bad; well, I mean it would be bad, but but not bad enough to bother the American electorate, who will surely be asking questions like "Are you sure you know how many refugees there are in Bangladesh? How many were there before the flooding? Can you tell me without googling it?" Returning to the sea levels of the Cretaceous would be bad.

Thank you for your answer.
The current rise is 3.2mm/year (with large regional variations, see http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml). The last IPCC report (the official summarization of climate science for policy purposes) predicts a worst-case scenario of a 60cm rise by 2100 and an optimistic one of 18cm (earlier reports predicted a higher rate, and the next one is apparently going to predict a higher worst case of 100cm again according to one source I could find - take that with a grain of salt). A recent report I could find (http://www.uibk.ac.at/public-relations/presse/archiv/2012/333/) predicts that the contribution from melting glaciers could be 22cm by 2100; the text there suggests that melting nearly all the world's glaciers would produce a rise of 42cm.

Even with minimal mitigation, none of that is capable of flooding Manhattan let alone Hawaii, especially if you consider the time scale (examine photos of New York in 1913 and I think you'll agree that cities change a lot in 100 years). From your comment it appears that you think that these are realistic scenarios. However, even orthodox climate science does not support this view. Where, then, does this belief come from? As I see it, at every step beyond what is discussed in scientific papers, from what scientist tell journalists, to what journalists tell the public, great exaggerations occur and taken together serve to mislead the public so that they are no longer able to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic scenarios. Even the media get confused at times and report truly outlandish claims (the "snowfall a thing of the past" thing is one example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/times-atlas-incorrect-greenland reports on two other such instances). The result is that the public has a strong opinion on climate science, as shown in this thread, but little accurate knowledge (for example about such basic things as actual sea-level rise).

Skeptics are known to point out some of these exaggerations, and they promptly get painted as "laymen with an agenda", implying a nefarious motive. In my view it's the scientists who should work to avoid giving the public misconceptions, we will all need to apply the best known information to make correct policy choices, otherwise we may be focusing our efforts on the wrong problems to solve. You mention destruction of forests and you'll get no argument from me about that - there are many environmental issues we should be paying attention to. In terms of fossil fuels, there's sufficient reason to be concerned about the increasingly risky business of extracting them and the effect that has on the environment.

This is was a reference to an opinion by a wealthy oil executive. It was later disproved by a study he funded (so much for confirmation bias).

So by this argument you consider any research into cancer not science? Interesting philosophy, I'm not sure how widely held it is.

The last section of my quote of your post is so painfully wrong factually ...

We can perform almost no such "true" experiments. There is one universe, one world, one nature and we are stuck in one moment of it. Climate science, along with cosmology and evolution, simply can't be, by this standard.



The one thing we can do is attempt to predict the path of climate change. Climate scientists have. Sadly, they've done a good job. Of course, to have the level of certainty we'd like about how much signal is there as opposed to noise, we have to wait until it is too late to do anything about it. In effect, we have one short physical system experiment to run and we are running it.



Here's the problem ... My gut feeling is that to modify our actual atmosphere significantly without knowing the consequences is hubris. Trying as best we can to figure out the consequences of our actions, even if it is a hard thing to do, is merely moving in the direction of prudence. This prediction of global warming is not new or particularly complex. You can model the climate on the back of an envelope and the answer is not very different than the fancy models give now. The details are different, but the result is always a significant change in climate, usually in one direction. CO2 is one of the gears of our climate system, one we don't understand very well, and we have gripped it and shoved it hard over, in an effort, as a species, to pull over and have an excellent lunch. The hubris of computer modelling is simply necessary.

In fact, the climate modelling business and the Phil Jones' of the world are the exact opposite of what you allege. Each time the modelling has been done, starting with Ahrrhenius (sp?) and his page or two of numbers, the answer has been fairly clear. If climate guys were fixated on the result, rather than being scientists, they would regard the question as answered and the results as proven. Instead, they try to cover more uncertainties, account for more variables, consider more sources, sinks and reservoirs of energy and predict more particular results. They modify their models based on review, criticism and debate. They in fact altered their statistics at one point based on McIntyre's criticism. The answer has not changed much. Of course there is no certainty and of course they need to keep working on it. At what standard of proof should the rest of us consider adjusting our future behavior? Do you regard it as proven to be 0% chance that climate change can be as destructive and prompt as predicted? What % is safe enough that we consider no change of behavior as prudent?

The stakes in this are enormous. Our current standard of living and size of population is pretty much unthinkable without fossil fuels. If there is a 50% chance we need to replace it we should be working on it now; not being inactive on the basis that the models predicting that are an ill-intentioned hoax. There one climate skeptic whose claims are coherent, in my view, Bjorn Lomborg. I don't agree with him on a lot, but I'd have happily just nodded quietly and agreed if we'd been able to follow his advice five or six years ago after the last IPCC report and raise $25 billion a year or so in a carbon tax and research the heck out of how to maintain our standard of living without changing the atmosphere so much.

Well, I still don't regard your experiences in medical research as science as it pertains to orthodoxy, business and publications issues as relevant to scientific discourse. Maybe in the UK they let just anyone with a scalpel cut on people, but our NIH doesn't give grants that don't have an MD as a PI. Your PI might not be an MD, but the grant will have one otherwise you won't have any samples even if they are just cancer biopsies.

You are not forbidden to use google. That's just him setting you up. Use google all you want to inform yourself and refine or change your thinking. His asking us, or you, not to use google is a rhetorical fling. He is implying that we are uninformed if we think sea level rise is a danger and that it is too late for us to go look for the details, because we already showed we were ignoramuses. His version of "the debate is over." I can't tell you how many times in online discussions I've seen people say something along the lines of "Ok, I went and looked it up, and you were right about B, C and D. Though I'd still argue I'm right about A. Does this mean that E?" That kind of thing is the value of these discussions, when they have value.

Sea level rise is not benign and not a matter of some fixed level drifting up 42 centimeters with slow easily predicted effects. The relevant thing is not half a meter up on a calm sunny day at slack tide. It is a storm surge being half a meter higher or more at its worst peak. Rational city planners who are allowed unfettered access to google have looked at the sea level rise that is predicted and concluded that large and expensive public works are necessary in response. Some national leaders have concluded their countries would no longer be viable, lacking a fresh water table, and are organizing places for their people to move.

Climate change might just be natural phonamena that happens not due to man made pollution.
What i dont want to see is that politicans use this unproven ideas for their own political agenda and people receive misguided information thinking it is true.

i give another example of such: flushot.
number of ppl getting flushot increases every year and government is recommanding that all citizen should receive flushot.
then why are we having flu epidemic?

how about think logically and wait till we have solid evidence before jumping into conclusions guided by our government?

i am sorry about talking about politic but i believe this thread is related to political issue IMO.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Yeah, and what about the fluoride in our water? Why are they trying to pollute our precious bodily fluids?

Thanks. This pretty well fits with what I recall for projections for 2100.



As recent events have shown, current sea levels already pose a threat to Manhattan. A 1 m. rise (100 cm.) would be quite problematic. One troubling aspect of these projections is that they keep on rising. (Part of the scientific uncertainty we have been talking about. It cuts both ways.)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The majority of health science is statistical study of human populations, laboratory studies on animal models (typically specially bred rat / mice), and when the opportunity presents itself, laboratory studies on cellular cultures and mechanisms. In general, this is not the sort of work that requires an MD, and the NIH is happy funding thousands of publich health research studies each year without an MD in the author list. Without these "health studies", there would be no convincing link between smoking and adverse health.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

In my opinion, there are two rational ways to approach the issue:

A. Base your opinion on the scientific consensus, which is that global warming is real, is man-made, and will cause real problems.

B. Base your opinion on your own research. In all likelihood, your conclusion will be the same as all those thousands of previous scientific papers, and you will agree with the consensus. If your research shows different, then please have it peer-reviewed and published.

Sadly, many people choose C: Base your opinion on some sort of gut feeling and on the opinion of some guy you saw on TV once.

Well I'll be, they can prove things with science, as much as those so called "Health Scientists" would have you believe otherwise.

Bill voiced a strong opinion. I was curious whether it was based on actual knowledge, especially since I used to hold the same strong opinion without knowing anything much in the way of details, and I am very grateful to him and to jts for answering truthfully. Looking up sea level trends was one of the early "aha" moments I had; in the past I also pictured New York or the Netherlands under water in 2050 based on the information I was fed. I remember starting to wonder about what was actually happening, and whether we shouldn't be seeing effects already, and this was one of the first pieces of data I checked.



I was curious about the opinions of contributors here, and about how much these opinions are based on reliable facts. I can only find that out by asking questions. I also preferred to have CnP rather than myself state the standard basic reasoning of climate science to avoid accidentally misrepresenting it.

Since you asked, here's what I think about the subject. The radiation physics argument that predicts the greenhouse effect is persuasive, so I think we can expect a certain level of warming from an increase in CO2. To my knowledge, the basic calculation, using just that effect, predicts a warming of 1.2K per doubling of CO2 (we have not yet achieved a doubling, and another doubling will be correspondingly harder to achieve). AFAIK climate science predicts a higher value of around 3K due to feedbacks that are assumed based on model calculations. I am not convinced that this has scientifically (in the real meaning of the word) been demonstrated to be realistic. Bill said "statistics prove nothing"; if we accept that, then we must also accept that we have no real evidence that CO2 has an effect at all in the real world. It could be true, or not, I think we have no way of knowing for certain at this stage.

I have serious problems with the media coverage, and the behaviour of some of the scientists involved: I think there are deplorable exaggerations, well-meaning perhaps to induce the public to form the "right" opinion, but ultimately misguided. The painting of doomsday scenarios makes for good headlines, even if they are not realistic. Eventually people catch on if they are misled and it will do damage to the credibility of science as a whole, and the perception of ecological issues in particular. I find it highly dubious that the media coverage focuses on negative impacts only while there's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be positive effects as well. When you do find an example of reporting about benefits such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8150415.stm they're amusingly qualified as a "small, barely measurable" to keep the world view intact. On the other hand, there are quite real risks to carbon-reducing measures like these http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2012-09-17/europes-thirst-biofuels-spells-hunger-millions-food-prices-shoot-up, so it is far from clear that inaction = death for millions while prevention = saved lives are correct equations.

Contrary to the common belief (stated by several people in this thread) that global warming is worse than predicted and accelerating, actual temperatures seem to trend towards the low end of projections (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/), despite the fact that CO2 emissions have risen faster than expected in recent times. I was also curious about whether this was known, and I think this discrepancy between beliefs and data is probably also due to media coverage. I expect they should have another one of those posts on their site soon. (Realclimate is home to some climate scientists which I think can fairly be said to represent the alarmist viewpoint. I've tried to post links only to sites which can be considered to be under no skeptical influence).

Part of the change in my thinking is also due to the realization that we're not going to do anything about the problem in a directed way. So it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks; we're either making the experiment or we're running out of fossil fuels, either way Nature will render a verdict in the end. So since preventing further carbon dioxide emissions is politically a futile goal since the countries that matter aren't going to sign off on it, my wish would be primarily to keep the institution of science intact, since, if applied properly, it is still the best tool we have to cope with whatever is coming.

And, as I indicated, the projections that you gave were in line with what I recalled.



Well, first, I said that statistics (the field, not the data) proves nothing. I also said that the statistics (the data) are evidence. Of course, we have plenty of evidence of the relation between CO2 levels and global temperature, going back hundreds of thousands of years. Do not be confused.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

One the things that I have always wondered not being an expert myself, is exactly how does CO2 relate to higher temperatures given that the earth is not a closed container. My expectation is that the primary factor in the raise in temperature is just the weight exerted as force of CO2 + H2O compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen etc and that trapping/radiating energy has little to do with the perceived temperature other than causing heavier compounds to be in gaseous form. My reasoning is that if there was more energy in the atoms the atmosphere would merely expand, minus the difference in mass of CO2, and that for the most part the temperature of the earth is related to the mass of the planet exerting gravitational force on the gasses. Maybe there is more to it.

ok...
CO2 level can not rise forever.
there are forces that will lower the level as it rises.

What if it will never reach the level that will create problem. This might be true.
But we spend money and waste so much effore lowering the CO2 level.

That is why we need to wait till we have more evidence on this subject.

it is like game of go.
before acting all out we will probe and see what the situation is and act accordingly.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

what evidence do you have to support this? I don't think any exists.



people have been collecting evidence for decades. how much is enough for you?