What are your thoughts on the National Academy of Sciences report "Advancing the Science of Climate Change"?

Boy, I really wish that was available for free. =)

It sounded like an excellent study.The 4 goals of this entire study, America's climate choices, were:

*Limiting Climate Change and Reducing Emissions

*Adapting to Climate Change

*Advancing Climate Change Science

*Informing Decision Makers and the General Public - We are in great need of a study to connect science and the decision makers, as well as the general public. This study was requested by congress to figure out "What can Congress do about Climate Change?". There defiantly needs to be some action at the congressional level, and hopefully this study will help further that action.

The "report in brief" that you linked to only covered the goal of Advancing climate change science. I've included a few important quotes from the report in brief.

"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."...."Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. ..."Thermometer measurements show that Earth's average surface temperature has risen substantially owner the past century, and especially over the last three decades. These data re corroborated by a variety of independent observations showing warming in other parts of the Earth system, including the oceans, the lower atmosphere, and ice-covered regions. Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burring and other human activities that release CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere."..."Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events,decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification."..."The question decision makers are asking has expanded from “what is happening” to “what is happening and what can we do to respond?” Scientific research can help answer both of these important questions."

..."As with all projections of the future, there will always be some uncertainty regarding the details of future climate change. For example, there are uncertainties in how human societies will decide to produce and use energy and other resources in the decades ahead, making it difficult to project future greenhouse gas emissions. Certain Earth system processes—such as ice sheet dynamics, cloud processes, and regional climate effects—are either incompletely understood or not fully resolved in current climate models, leading to uncertainties in the magnitude and rate of global climate change and its manifestations at local and regional scales."..."There is less certainty in other projections, such as how the combination of greenhouse gas increases, temperature increases, precipitation changes, and other climate and climate-related changes will affect agricultural crops and natural ecosystems in different regions. Furthermore, different sectors, populations, and regions will vary in their exposure and sensitivity to the impacts of these changes; in general, research suggests that the impacts of climate change will more harshly affect poorer nations and communities."

I think they did an excellent job summarizing climate science. =) Great study!

Bob: I agree that global warming is an issue as is pollution and the rapid use of the world's resources. I tend to be a skeptic of skeptics and these organizations are not necessarily working in our best interest. I think regardless of whatever evidence (either pro or con) we should try to do our best to consume less and pollute less. Also, I believe that there should be population control (by what means, I do not know. Nothing violent... encourage ppl to have only one or no children and pay them for this agreement). It is quite possible that the earth's heating and cooling cycles are not in correlation with our actions. However, we all can argue that human activity has caused desertification and pollution. We need to win the environmental argument based on what we can prove, and not focus so strongly on this "global warming" topic. There has to be some sort of behavioral shift where ppl want to recycle, live more simply, and find alternative energy solutions because it's the right thing to do. When anyone figures out how to accomplish this, please let me know. I cannot even influence the culture in my company to stop using Styrofoam in the cafeteria. Sorry! Another topic!

"The best scientists are in the Pharma industry and other sectors that still actually use the scientific method. Further these people are paid to do real work that has made a difference."

OMG this is too funny. Nothing like beating your chest and saying my group is the best scientists in the world. The truth is that Pharma scientists were not generally good at math and shyed away from physics and other hard sciences. Heck they don't even do their own statistics, they get biostatisticians to do it for them. I know many scientists in big Pharma and they will admit they are not that great at math. None of the ones I know deny AGW either.

Please don't give me this crap about them doing great science. They follow FDA guidelines and standard laboratory practices and that is it. Most of the Pharma scientists I talk to feel they don't do science, they follow a rote procedure and say their hands are tied most of the time. These people know their field too and are much more knowledgeable than most physicians. Perhaps CO2 is confused about the distinction between practicing research and practicing science. The Pharma scientists that I know do not.

And yes they cheat too. Not the ones I know, but they have told me that they know of a few instances where the statistics from clinical trials have been manipulated and they get away with it.

That was really a pathetic rant and I am sure my friends in pharma would be embarrassed to find out that you are one of their own.

What's next, are we going to hear that geologists also the best scientists?

There's an excellent article in the March 2010 edition of Smithsonian concerning the collection of climate science and data in Alaska. Currently the effort isn't to determine if there is 'climate change' or to even 'prove' that human activity is the culprit...all of that is already proven. The current scientific investigation is about determining the current extent and effect so far. The deniers are already way behind the wave...that ship has already sailed. While it's still possible to argue about the final outcome and it's time frame, there's NO possible argument against the data. Just as human rights would exist even without a written constitution, climate change would exist without Al Gore, the Pope or the Man in the Moon. In my own Alaska experience there are now trees previously found as much as 200 miles further south now growing on the tundra where there have been no trees since human beings swung down out of the trees. Lakes that once existed because they rested on permafrost are now percolating deep into the soil releasing tons of CO2 and methane...the feedback 'circle of life' is already well established. Sorry 'deniers', I gotta; go with science...you guys can stick with the right wing radio dummies.

Good day Danna and everyone! The point I'd like you to attent is the question: "What are we doing or what can we do to respond in order to help future generations to keep life living in Earth?"

To: I expel CO2 everytime I breathe, I didn´t like your point of view.

The little womam and other litltle guy seems not to be worried about the education basically and primary that we usually get from the people that take care us. Talking about me, my grandmother used finished tobacco to preserve her little culture of lettuce and other we have here and you don´t eat there, burying those smoked cigarrets about 5cm on the round of each plant. Her "huerta" was very good. Now we know that we can recycle all type of papers into other staff, including rubish from sanitaries. And I ask to the National Industry of Pharma and cathedratics of medicine: "How they recycle garbage in hospitals? I allways thougt, since I knew the discovery of "algodón", how it was planted and colected by slaves, that they came to the industry of cosmetics... don´t you people think its an absurd?" And know the knew packages for juices in powder or tomato sauce have "aluminium"! It´s horrible!

Just litlle more lines:

I read the resumée you sent. Thanks. It is interesting. The other day I saw a documentary on TV about the position of a planet interferring on the "behaviour" of the sun. It was fact. Science not horoscope. Be counscious and investigate, ok?

And:

Latelly I have noticed many new insects flying during the night that I have never seen before. But they seem to be beautifull and small. But no night birds no more to eat insects like these. Cats would solve an "epidemy". But where I live is not ok. The last bee visited my cup of coffee in the middle of the afternoon seeking for food and here is fall. Strong storms in south. Hard lack of humidity in middle-center.

"What do I do to help as I re-remembered the conclusions of the scientists in the begining?"

Recycle boxes to make "artesanato" like Lídia did once to help Paul and their community.

Hope I have helped you too. Nice report you all show me. I appreciate the opportunity. Bye!

I am not a climate scientist, or a scientist at all, but it would seem that we should be dealing with the effects of global warming and how to reduce those effects. Arguing about whether global warming is happening is a waste of my time: the science has been proved...why these deniers persist with their nonsensical arguments could better be explained by a psychologist than a climate scientist.

I expel CO2 everytime I breathe --

Bribery and corruption of physicians and politicians; testing and marketing fraud; criminal negligence and intent in the manufacture of drugs – name a branch of science with a worse criminal record than the Pharm industry.

As for FOIA, what industry is more secretive than the pharm industry?

And I guess the only science is one with a periodic table, huh?

That is pathetically lame and, more than anything, shows complete ignorance of the philosophy of science and the epistemology of human knowledge (the scientific method).

If you are concerned about linear regression models, why do you never criticize the vast population of moronic deniers that spout off about cycles although they’ve never heard of time series analysis; FFTs (or who it is named after); time and frequency domains; or spectral analysis?

Do you even know how "Regression" analysis got its name?

=====

I expel CO2 everytime I breathe --

>>"Also while the industry is secretive about the compound they place their results and methods of obtaining those results for the public to see.."

Where?

Show me where I can find the results of the experiments that statistically validate the use of the many drugs that have become a part of daily life for millions of Americans.

Show me anything indicating that they know anything about brain biochemistry that makes the treatment of mental illness any better than it was 100 years ago.

And as much as I appreciate cancer treatments - my sister was saved by it - her cure was more a result of the excellent, spare no expense, treatment and care she received from Walter Reed AMC than from the pharm industry..

Most chemo-therapy treatments people receive are still damn-near Medieval.

Besides, if all chemists are all so damned smart, why are so many of their discoveries accidental?

Penicillin

helium

Minoxidil

Viagra

Retin-A

l-dopa

benzodiazepine

chlorpromazine

cisplatin

nitrous oxide

Mustine

Prontosil

Interferon

Aspartame

Gelignite

Polymethylene

rubber

Racemization

Teflon

Superglue

Scotchgard

Cellophane

Iodine

Polycarbonates

Rayon

cyclamate

Saccharin

And, least squares is just the simplest and most familiar form of regression.

The report does not surprise me, nor does the garbage in the responses here. But I guess the NAS, and the hundred Nobel prizewinners who signed the Nobel centennial warning letter, will survive CO2's poor opinion of them.

Can Eric C give a credible reference for his story about NAS?

Congress asked for the reports, NAS responded, Congress will now proceed to ignore the recommendations.

I find it interesting that Mr expel co2 cites big pharma as the only real scientists. With the monetary incentives involved, they are the only ones that can be counted on, year after year, to have a proven scandal involving falsifying their data for profit. Do a Google search on "falsified drug data"

Edit for expel CO2 (and a lot of skatols) you really ought to check out where the science, as opposed to engineering technology and screening, for cancer cures and AIDS drugs came from. You might check where the Nobel Prizes for medicine come from, too. Hint - it ain't big pharma, it even includes (GASP) Berkeley researchers. As to oversight - scientists from different labs in different disciplines checking the same data impress me a hall of a lot more than the FDA ever did.

N.B> my "ignorance" comes from experience in university labs and with the FDA - and, in spite of your handwaving about mismanaged datasets, I'll stand by my claim as to which is more likely to catch error and or fraud, as well as who's more likely to commit it.

If a theory has been tested many times, there has to be proof unless someone is hiding something from society through a bribe. Most can actually be witnessed in real life. The whole debate on global warming. It may not be what we expected but in some parts of the country, strange weather patterns are taking place that had never existed.