Consensus

There is no real consensus among scientists on this issue. One group of climate scientists who by use of computer modelling, have concluded that global warming is a fact and is caused by an increase in man made CO2 emissions. These same scientists have also stated that their computers are not capable of handling the sheer number of calculations needed for proof of their assertion.

According to a survey by the research institute GKSS only every tenth of the 546 surveyed climate scientists from 27 countries was sure that today's findings of the IPCC were sufficient to evaluate the impact of the greenhouse effect by fair standards of judgement. Many other scientists in a number of disciplines including geology, earth science and meteorology hold different opinions than the IPCC.

As pointed out earlier, there are now a growing number of renowned scientists who refute the common view of the 'consensus climate science fraternity' vocalised in progress reports of the intergovernmental panel (IPCC). They are often called "climate sceptics". Their criticism is directed mainly against the central thesis of the IPCC, according to which a significant proportion of the recent warming process is human made. The group of critics particularly stresses the importance of solar activity to global warming. It includes, for example, atmospheric physicist, W. Gray, professor of environmental sciences F. Singer, or the Director of the Danish National Space Centre, Henrik Svensmark. The problem is complex with many variables to consider and there has been a lot of misrepresentation of the facts in the press by both politicians and reporters. We see one example of this in the way the press covered a report in 2007 by the University of Illinois showing that the arctic ice cap had the lowest level of ice cover in thirty years. This was reported widely in the popular press while omitting reports statement that in 2007 the Antarctic ice cover was at an all time high.

However 30,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that they:
believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes believe cause of global warming is unknown believe global warming will benefit human society
This petition has been signed by 31,478 American scientists including 9,029 with PhD. degrees and including Nobel Laureates. The petition reads as follows: ... " We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. " (Source: petitionproject.org) Then again somewhat paradoxically, according to a new study, published in the journal "Nature", it is regarded as proven that the heavy pollution of the atmosphere counteracts global warming, since it can dampen the 'greenhouse effect'. A European research group confirmed the long suspected relationship. Hence with the new aspect that smog and soot is in an indirect way 'useful' for plants because these particles may facilitate the absorption of carbon dioxide. In this way, the 'greenhouse gases' would be removed from the air to a greater extent than in clean air conditions.
The model revealed by Knut Alfsen at the Centre for International Environmental Research in Oslo, that without the greatly increased air pollution, the temperature of the earth since industrialisation would have increased not only by 0.7, rather by up to 1.1 degrees Celsius.

Consensus building process

This new hypothesis examines in detail how dirt particles reflect sunlight. Particulate matter, smog lead to an increase in cloud formation which diffuses sunlight. It is argued that in a polluted atmosphere, even those parts of plants have access to usable light which otherwise would be in the shade. Therefore under diffuse light conditions there were more leaves of a plant involved in the process of photosynthesis, converting sunlight and carbon dioxide to water and nutrients, than in a clear, pollution free atmosphere. Surprisingly, plants grow not best on bright sunny days, but rather in hazy conditions, said co-author of the study, Stephen Sitch. In the years between 1960 and 1999 plant productivity promoted by air pollution rose worldwide by one quarter, said the leading author of the study, Linda Mercado of the acclaimed British Hadley Centre. In this way, about ten percent more carbon had been stored in the soil.

Should the findings of this new study gain momentum, the politicians of this world might be confronted with a real dilemma: The more air pollution is reduced and thus the activity of the plants reduced, the more the carbon dioxide emissions ought to be reduced in order to prevent accelerated global warming.

The impact of aerosols on the global climate is - beyond and apart from the just published study on plant growth - an important, still largely unknown climate component related to the temperature variation on earth. Aerosols are released by natural sources (such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms or forest fires) or originate from man-made pollution. In addition, they can cause both cooling, and heating effects by means of complicated interactions. A NASA-led study published recently by Drew Shindell came to the conclusion that aerosols, to a great extent, were responsible for the accelerated warming of the Arctic.

Other researchers make the air pollution responsible for the observed retreat of glaciers, and argue that this was not solely explainable by the increased temperatures. However the state and condition of glaciers is, as in most areas of climate research, regarded as extremely complex. In fact it seems likely that the main contributing factor for the melting of glaciers is decades-old dirt particles sunken back to the ground. In fact, a melting glaciers often looks dirty grey. With this coloration, it can absorb much more solar energy to heat up more easily and melts more quickly contrary to the white, more reflective surface.

The more one tries to keep track with the newest most progressive results modern climate science is able to produce worldwide and virtually on a daily basis the more one comes to the conclusion that the field of climate research is still very fluent, extremely complex and the interdependence of just the known parameters is still far beyond comprehension for all of us, including the 'fraternity' of consensus scientists!

The very cold god of physics is there with the red pen to make sure we all get it right in the end ...

The fraternity of consensus advocates