Adrian B

Recently there has been a spate of Q&A's that seem to imply scientists and people who accept AGW refuse to acknowledge there is anything they don't know. Some have tried to use this as a negative, but i see it as the opposite. We are still completely sure of the overriding principles of AGW, despite the fact we know there are so many questions left to answer.

So lets get it on the record (well, the YA record at least). What are the facts we definitely know? And where are the areas we are still uncertain?

Ill get the ball rolling i guess.

We are certain that:

- CO2 absorbs long wave radiation emitted from the earths surface.

We are not certain

- How much methane and CO2 is emitted annually from tropical floodplains and how this will potentially change with temperature/precipitation variability.

I'm only really after an answer from one person, and i think most will know who. CO2 concentration has increased from around 300 (i'm rounding up to be generous) early in the 20th century, to around 390 ppm now.

A certain person on here continually claims the rise in CO2 is 0.01% (recent example "People believe that a 0.01% change in CO2 is driving Global Warming because they WANT to.)

Clearly i have been taught some bad maths in my youth, so can someone please tell me how 300 to 390 equals a 0.01% increase??

The recent icelandic volcano is estimated to have released around 150,000 to 300,000 tonnes of CO2 during this eruption. This is less than the CO2 that would have been added due to the grounded air traffic, making this our second carbon negative volcano (Pinatubo being the other known example, but for different reasons).

With this in mind can we now expect skeptics/deniers to stop with the claim volcano's emmit more CO2 per annum than we do? I don't hear it on YA much anymore, but its most certainly still out there!

Opinions?

I was looking forward to downloading this recently, but it still says content is unavailable in this region. Does anyone know if/when this will be available down under?

The Australian Academy of Science has released one of the clearest statements on climate change yet produced.

Based on a series of key questions, the publication aims to address confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain. It sets out to explain the current situation in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific community and where uncertainties exist.

So what do you think of this report? And do you think it will go anyway to convincing skeptics/deniers of the science behind climate change?

http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange2010...

The current trend in the mass media and the general public appears to be one of increased denial and mistrust of scientists. It seems the sources like Fox News and internet blogs by amateurs are now the dominant source of information for many, and as we all know, these are far from representative of the scientific facts.

So what, as scientists, can we do to counter this effect? We tend to be reserved in our findings, we publish our work and then leave it to the rest of the scientific community to read the material, analyse it and draw there conclusions. But is this enough for the main stream? After all, ten journal articles supporting AGW will be happily ignored by the media, who thrive on controversy.

So what do we do? I try and advertise the science to people on sites like this. I also teach at a university in the scientific method, how we subjectively look at the evidence, plan experiments and draw conclusions. But my work is very much confined to the University and the scientific community. This is clearly not enough, so what would be?

Ok, i have said it a few times before on here (i promise i will stop!) But i am an active research scientist in the field of carbon cycling and climate science. I therefore spend a significant amount of tme with my head in the scientific literature.

I seem to be bad at it though as i have not seen any publications in reputable, peer-reviewed journals that support the skeptics claims.

So please, lets have some! This is not a facetious question, i am genuinely interested where this information is appearing. Lets put some ground rules though. Firstly, no blog entries, i want first order sources.... from the horses mouth so to speak. Secondly, im sure we all know how quickly the field of climate science has advanced, so lets keep it to the last 5 years, 2005 onward. Please, no links to papers from 1972 talking about global cooling!

Ok then, lets see what you can get!

Rgds

Adrian