(second entry in my series of exchanges “On Climate Debate and Debate Climate” with a person genuinely convinced AGW is a settled argument):
(on “deniers” being able only to appear on web sites)
You’re assuming that there is some kind of scientists vs lay people war around AGW. And that all scientists think AGW in the same terms. That is incorrect.
This is from an IPCC Reviewer, Lead Author, Co-chair.
This is from an IPCC Lead Author and Contributing Author.
It’s two, but they are pretty high in the hierarchy. I personally know another IPCC reviewer that disagrees with the IPCC conclusions.
I suspect if anybody did a survey of the 2,500 IPCC scientists and experts, we will see the whole gamut of opinion.
In any case, I suggest reading the “Geophysical Research Letters“, a publication that is hosting very interesting and very scientific exchanges from all sides, and by that I mean scientists believing in catastrophic AGW, or in strong-but-manageable AGW, or in mild AGW, or in minute AGW, or finally in negligible or no AGW at all.
I strongly object this quasi-religious distinction in “scientists” and “lay people”.
I have some peer-reviewed scientific articles myself: does that suffice to become a scientist? And if AGW is for “scientists” and not for “lay people” then what are we discussing about? I am not in any major climate research center. Are you?
(on the reasons why one would not believe in “bodies of expertise”)
I do not believe in any “body of expertise”. If that was requested, neither Scientific American nor American Scientist would be around.
I can read the scientific articles, and I am in a 4-year quest to find evidence for AGW. A change in any weather pattern would suffice, but so far none has been reported. RealClimate are actually adamant they are not even interested in finding any.
(on alternative quantitative analyses)
The IPCC AR4-WG2 has a whole chapter about AGW-related changes: I have read it all and can definitely report a curious, very strong European bias in observations.
The rest is lots of ifs, buts, maybes, coulds and the like. Including thousands of observations not compatible with warming.
(on the necessity of cutting down emissions if AGW is real)
That is incorrect. There are indications that harm-reduction can be a better strategy. It is an ongoing debate, and no guess which side I am on.
(on the central role of CO2)
You’ll read that again in 10 years’ time and realize how incredibly exaggerated such a claim is. Climate is a chaotic system, very complex, hard to model (nobody has modelled clouds very well, figure that out!)
Focussing on CO2 may be worse than trying to lose weight eliminating fat from food without taking care of sugars.
(on mechanisms linking solar wind and earth weather)
I do not “believe” in a correlation between solar wind and earth weather. I am “curious” in seeing if there is any correlation between any part of the solar activity and earth weather. We have several years of data, also from the Ulysses probe, but all of them in a period of a relatively active Sun.
If the Sun goes quiet for a while, in terms of sunspots, eruptions, coronal activity, or whatever else, then we will know more about any such “correlation”.
On the other hand, with a star only 8 light-minutes away, basking in its rays, travelling at high speed with our magnetic field through its electromagnetically active corona, constantly hit by a “wind” of particles, etc etc, I find the idea that the Sun does not influence the weather preposterous.
And to think it as true instead , I want to see pretty hard evidence in its favor.