Re: [asa] Creation Care

As I'm trying to learn more about this, I found what seem to be some good US
government resources, including a booklet entitled "Climate Change Science:
An Analysis of Some Key Questions," published by the National Academies
Press (http://books.nap.edu//html/climatechange/index.html). Is this a
credible source?

The chapter on "Future Climate Change" in that book (
http://books.nap.edu//html/climatechange/6.html) includes the following:

The impacts of these climate changes will be significant, but their nature
and intensity will depend strongly on the region and timing of occurrence.
At a national level, the direct economic impacts are likely to be modest.
However, on a regional basis the level and extent of both beneficial and
harmful impacts will grow. Some economic sectors may be transformed
substantially and there may be significant regional transitions associated
with shifts in agriculture and forestry. Increasingly, climate change
impacts will have to be placed in the context of other stresses associated
with land use and a wide variety of pollutants. The possibility of abrupt or
unexpected changes could pose greater challenges for adaptation.

The chapter on "The Occurrence of Climate Change" includes the following:

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories
of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage
between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed
climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.
The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison
to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such
a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model
simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to
century time scale.

Is this a fair statement?

The chapter on "Assessing Progress on Climate Science" (
http://books.nap.edu//html/climatechange/7.html) includes the following:

Climate projections will always be far from perfect. Confidence limits and
probabilistic information, with their basis, should always be considered as
an integral part of the information that climate scientists provide to
policy- and decision-makers. Without them, the IPCC SPM could give an
impression that the science of global warming is "settled," even though many
uncertainties still remain. The emission scenarios used by IPCC provide a
good example. Human decisions will almost certainly alter emissions over the
next century. Because we cannot predict either the course of human
populations, technology, or societal transitions with any clarity, the
actual greenhouse gas emissions could be either greater or less than the
IPCC scenarios. Without an understanding of the sources and degree of
uncertainty, decision-makers could fail to define the best ways to deal with
the serious issue of global warming.

Is this a fair statement?

That chapter also includes the following:

Knowledge of the climate system and projections about the future climate are
derived from fundamental physics and chemistry through models and
observations of the atmosphere and the climate system. Climate models are
built using the best scientific knowledge of the processes that operate
within the climate system, which in turn are based on observations of these
systems. A major limitation of these model forecasts for use around the
world is the paucity of data available to evaluate the ability of coupled
models to simulate important aspects of past climate. In addition, the
observing system available today is a composite of observations that neither
provide the information nor the continuity in the data needed to support
measurements of climate variables. Therefore, above all, it is essential to
ensure the existence of a long-term observing system that provides a more
definitive observational foundation to evaluate decadal- to century-scale
variability and change. This observing system must include observations of
key state variables-such as temperature, precipitation, humidity, pressure,
clouds, sea ice and snow cover, sea level, sea-surface temperature, carbon
fluxes and soil moisture. Additionally, more comprehensive regional
measurements of greenhouse gases would provide critical information about
their local and regional source strengths.

Is this a fair statement?

Another good site seems to be one provided by the US Environmental
Protection Agency, which breaks down "What's Known," "What's Certain," and
"What's Likely" (
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html). Does this
site provide a fair summary of the state of the art?

Note that I'm not trying to mine and dump quotes as a skeptic. I'm trying
to understand the real state of the art and the real meaning of the
scientific consensus, including its limitations.

On 1/22/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 1/22/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rich, I think it's important to distinguish the facts Gore asserts from
> > the images he displays. While it may be true, as the Real Climate Blog
> > asserts, that Gore states most of the facts correctly, I can't see how any
> > sober-minded person could view the string of images presented in that
> > trailer and consider it a fair and balanced discussion of the problem. The
> > impression I get upon viewing that trailer is that Florida will be
> > underwater in short order and millions of starving refugees will soon be
> > streaming into the U.S. interior. The actual science doesn't support
> > that imagery by a longshot.
> >
> > BTW, I note that the Real Climate Blog also praises Gore's earlier book,
> > Earth in the Balance. I read that book years ago. In it, Gore asserts that
> > most of the major turning points in human history were attributable to
> > environmental changes -- even pinpointing the outcomes of specific wars to
> > particular environmental events. How anyone could consider that
> > scientifically sound is beyond me.
> >
>
> I am not as willing to give Gore a pass as the Real Climate blog. I
> provided the info above to show the differences of substance between Gore
> and the professional climate scientists. My uncle who is a retired
> environmental engineer opinion of Earth in the Balance was let's say less
> than positive. By ignoring the nature of the images used in An Inconvenient
> Truth the climate scientists also ignore that most Americans get their info
> from the images themselves and not the underlying substance. Thus, in the
> final analysis An Inconvenient Truth miscommunicates greatly. Further, by
> doing this it makes sober discussion less likely and only inflames the
> partisans on both sides. This is what I mean by saying that Gore was less
> than helpful earlier.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.