Daviy, you raise many issues.

1. You talk of probabilities. I respect Rahmstorf, but quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context doesn’t help, although I do understand why some do (just watch the Heartland Institute and their up-coming New York sermons).

I agree, it would be useful to model the ‘transient’ nature of climate, particularly wrt continental and regional scales (Keenlyside, Yamagata and Vinayachandan does). However, this should not be confused with the “transitive nature of the climate system” that spans millennium or geologic time spans. Btw, I have not seen any economic model that when you input observed empirical data, that you can hindcast the Great Depression. GY erroneously compares modelling climate trends to modelling short term noise.

One (not the only) consequence of global warming is the increase in extreme weather events. It is not a matter of the “weather pattern switching to another set of rules”. Put another way, the science (physics, chemistry, etc) of GW is very well understood. What’s not settled is the minutiae – there will always be debate (and progress) in the scientific community.

2. As to the ‘popular press’ reports. This is an ocean-atmosphere coupled system that does impact on extreme weather events, and evidently more on the extreme conditions we have been experiencing here in Australia. The ocean component (Indian Ocean Dipole – IOD) is being felt more significantly by the atmospheric component (Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation – EQUINOO). It is complicated, because the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is linked by the cells of the Walker Circulation.

See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#109767

3. Scientists can only present the evidence; it is for others to decide what to do in light of the evidence. However, many people wrongly compare the AGW orthodoxy to judgements in criminal law – it is not. The weight of robust evidence supports the theory, but it takes only one robust counter-hypothesis to overturn it – this hasn’t been done, not Galactic Cosmic Rays, Sun-spots, Milankovitch Cycles, negative feedback forcings, volcanos, or even some people’s arcane gas-bagging.

cont'd

cont'd

4. You raise an excellent question regarding education because there are problems with oversimplification. The IPCC reports (while arguably conservative) are good, even for the layperson. Nonetheless, more can be done by other bodies – and it is, by international science academies, government departments and teaching institutions.

Unfortunately, many people get their ‘expertise’ from the ‘popular press’ whose journalists quite often take things out of context or get it wrong altogether, for whatever reason.

I have repeatedly asked here on OLO how we could disseminate the science better, and no one but no one has been able to proffer anything better than the IPCC.

5. “'We have only one test tube ... Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters.”

My opinion has most definitely NOT changed. I get ‘bagged’ by AGW alarmists and the out-right ‘deniers’. I am encouraged when something like the following lobs in the inbox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA

6. I hope you were able to re-visit the thread fungochumley linked to. I think sustainability issues are crux. Ludwig articulates much better than me, and Jeff Harvey especially on environmental, ecological and economic matters.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1367266

I am still learning, others still have their head stuck in the mud.

________

One thing Daviy, I feel very uncomfortable with governments and economies around the world repeating the mistakes that have lead us to this in the first place, trying to prop up a system that has clearly failed. Cognitive dissonance IanC, yes. We should be looking towards a new paradigm, imo.

I don't have the answers but am willing to learn and contribute where I can. Problem is, so many are denying the root cause in the first place.

Q&A
It looks as though there are some things we will agree on but other we will not.
As a scientist what is you opinion on how oil was formed in the first place? I have read so many differing accounts from scientists including the differing climatic conditions that must have existed (dead seas etc.). If it where necessary for our planet to re-absorb the carbon would flip back into that pattern?
I say possibility and you say probability. The two are far from the same. If I say it is possible I am not putting numbers on it. Probability immediately assigns a number to argue about.
You respect Rahmstorf? Here is something from Rahmstorf

The unexpectedly rapid change in Arctic sea ice and other climate processes suggests that the climate reacts more strongly to a given amount of global warming than scientists have calculated. As a result, risks from future climate change are likely greater than scientists have generally believed, and existing climate change projections might best be viewed as the minimum changes that humanity should expect.

In trying to find out the science involved the only thing that I can say is that the infighting amongst scientists is worse than tom cats on the prowl. And they all talk on behalf of science as if their opinion speaks for everyone.
For every scientist that emphatically tells me one thing I can find another scientist who will emphatically tell me the exact opposite. And all have been scrupulously pedantic. At the moment the infighting amongst scientist on this issue is worse than Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay conferences.
Why can't scientist just say they don't know and then get on with finding out?
Bottom line is 'Trust me, I am a scientist' just doesn't work for me, no matter who the scientist is.
Q&A, these comments are not aimed at you in particular, but rather a commentary on the generally unhealthy state of scientific communication. The input of science into the debate on GW has been negative. Now both sides can quote the 'science' and confusion reigns

David

1. What is your point in asking me about the formation of oil? My expertise lies elsewhere, so I would defer to those involved in the oil industry. Anyway, as I understand, it takes millions of years under ‘natural’ conditions. The idea of “flipping back” doesn't happen overnight.

You know just as well as I that there are other means of generating oil, albeit ‘oils ain’t oils’. At the end of the day, burning huge amounts of carbon compounds without judicious thought of the consequences is not forward thinking. Corollary: the world’s oceans and terrestrial biosphere cannot absorb quickly enough the amounts of carbon we are currently putting into the atmosphere.

2. Yes, you do talk of possibilities – I read you wrong. Ok, anything is possible. It is possible that the Sun won’t be there tomorrow. It is possible that you will spontaneously combust in bed tonight. It is possible that we will go into an abrupt and catastrophic climate change.

Let me draw an analogy:

It was possible Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said that if there were only a 1% chance that Iraq had them, they would do all in their power to find and eradicate them. Well, there is a 90 -95% chance that AGW is real and will significantly threaten world peace. We know what Bush & Co did about WMD’s; we know what they didn’t do about the “weathers of mass destruction”.

You recognise scientists talk in terms of probabilities:

“Scientifically all things are probabilities until an event becomes actual. With the scientific evidence availably my view is that there is a global warming problem. But that is not a certainty. I trust that the scientist on both sides have done the best they can (but being a scientist is no guarantee of being free of bias)” sic.

Of course I respect Stefan (you seem to doubt it); he is a brother in arms. He talks in probabilities too. Playing with his ‘what if’ scenarios he comes to a 30% chance of a THC collapse.

Cont’d

Cont’d

You quote Rahmstorf:

“The unexpectedly rapid change in Arctic sea ice and other climate processes suggests that the climate reacts more strongly to a given amount of global warming than scientists have calculated. As a result, risks from future climate change are likely greater than scientists have generally believed, and existing climate change projections might best be viewed as the minimum changes that humanity should expect.”

Daviy, I absolutely agree (so please don’t infer that I don’t).

Further, the THC can collapse if for example the Greenland ice sheets melts, but this will take a very, very long time in humanity’s time frame (it won’t flip) but in the twinkle of an eye in geologic time.

3. You misinterpret “infighting amongst scientists”. Yes, we do have egos (we are normal after all) and we do rigorously debate nuances in scientific circles, but it shows a lack of understanding in likening real scientific debate to cats fighting.

4. No, our opinion does not speak for everyone.

5. Scientists are not asking you to trust them. We present evidence to government policy makers, captains of industry and individuals alike. You deal with that evidence the best way you know how. I have said this in my previous post – I am sorry you do not understand.

6. I’ll ask again:

How do you think the science community should disseminate the science better?

Indeed, can you think of a better way other than the IPCC process (assuming you know what that process is)?

I think we read from the same book, we are just reading different chapters.
Cheers
qanda

Hi again Q&A
'I respect Rahmstorf, but quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context doesn’t help.'
I took this to mean you thought Rahmstorf was quoting scenarios of catastrophic climate change out of context. If that was not you intent I was mistaken.
My questions about oil where intended to ask your opinion on the climatic conditions necessary. I was asking for an opinion because I understand no-body really knows but with your background I thought it might be within your expertise.
Science seems to be detailed but narrow in lots of little boxes. Who is there to put it all together in a coherent manner in one big box? I think we need generalist scientists with the ability to combine information and communicate the facts to the popular press. A whole new branch of science. It might even help scientist understand what others in different fields are doing.

Well, there is a 90 -95% chance that AGW is real and will significantly threaten world peace. We know what Bush & Co did about WMD’s; we know what they didn’t do about the “weathers of mass destruction”.

From your previous posts I had the impression that you where arguing against GW being a reality (or a high degree of probability). On that I also seem to have been mistaken.
So what is the issue? Whether or not climate change can happen instantly or take a long time? As long as it doesn't happen instantly and we can find a way of fixing GW without too much damage I will be happy.
May I suggest that we agree to disagree on that one issue because it has become far too large for the potential benefit of pursuing it?
Now, how is it possible to get real information out to the general public in a way that can be digested without a Phd?