Question

Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change: The Indisputable Verities.

Answer 1

Abstract:

Global warming can be described as the gradual escalation in the global temperature of the Earth's atmospheric environ as a consequence of the greenhouse effect which itself is triggered by augmented echelons of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbon and other-such pollutants. Climate change, similarly, can be defined as the observable variations in international and / or provincial climate patterns; these changes are generally attributed to the amplified amounts of carbon dioxide – produced by the burning of fossil fuels – in the atmosphere. From the very beginning, the very notion of global warming has been refuted by the general public as well as some scientific communities and the conception that we humans may be culpable for this incident has been taken as an affront to our self-labelled position as untouchable, perfect beings that are the centre of the universe. In contemporary society, however, the majority of the masses have come to acknowledge that the scientific evidence provided over the years by climate models and the like, motion incontestably that climate change is not totally implausible but that perchance it has always been inevitable. Whether its geological proof from the last ice age, a Hollywood doomsday blockbuster movie, or just a desire to spend less money on bills; citizens all over the world have already spent billions on solar panels, rainwater tanks, florescent light bulbs, wind farms and other environmentally friendly products and devices. Unfortunately, a lot more work needs to be done and environmental scientists and activists are endeavouring to preserve forests and their fauna. Critics, on the other hand, can argue one of two ways: that global warming has never been real, isn’t real and never will be real, or that global warming is real, is or isn’t our fault, and that there’s nothing we can do to stop it so we should just live life every day as if it will be our last. The controversy surrounding this prevalent implication is still ongoing, and on a multinational, multimedia scale too. A postulation of such a grand scale that implicates so many requires substantial tangible evidence, especially if it is a declaration – such as it is – that is in direct disagreement with the way people view the state of the planet: a home of infinite resources that will simply bounce-back after every exploitation. Accordingly, any who wish to ratify or repudiate the validity of anthropogenic global warming and climate change must be prepared to ruminate meticulously and provide factual evidence collected outside of the laboratory, collate the data into appropriate categories and collaborate the deductions with scholars in order to ensure maximum reliability. Experiments must be tested and re-tested, findings must be questioned and answered; for scientific minds can only be won over by uncorrupted persuasion and conformity to the scientific method and nature of science. This report will ascertain the conventionality of both climatologists and non-climatologists thereof.

Answer 2

Introduction:

In this, the 21st century, civilians are more aware than ever before about the state of our Earth. This is indeed an Age of Realisation as there are a number of global predicaments knocking on all our front doors: excessive population growth (there are over 7 million people currently alive – far exceeding what the planet can house – and all have an undying demand for consumer goods and carbon-based energy; extracting natural resources without mercy) food and water shortages (water sources are drying up which means no water for crops and livestock and higher bills for the tax-payer) merciless species extermination (in jungles and oceans species are going extinct fast which means ecosystem and food chain collapse as well as less chance of finding natural cures for diseases) mass famine and drought (if farms can’t produce food then costs will skyrocket and people will starve) spread of deserts (where once was forest, is now eroded, unusable soil; all because of deforestation and urbanisation) pandemic diseases (infectious pandemics could spread internationally at unstoppable rates, just as they have done so in the past, with the capability to wipe out countless numbers of people) extreme poverty, unemployment and homelessness (billions of people live in unthinkable conditions without sanitation and hope for salvation) unstoppable global migrations (huge numbers of asylum seekers are fleeing third world countries) lawless religious extremist and terrorist organisations (jihads to rid the world of the ‘unholy’ are becoming increasingly widespread and these groups are in control of a terrifying arsenal of weaponry) artificial intelligence (electronic devices do all our thinking for us – it’s only a matter of time before they start thinking for themselves) end of civilisation (a global war, conducted with today’s vast number of nuclear weapons and new biological weapons, could wipe out human beings those that did survive would be plunged into a:) New Dark Age (intolerable paucity of resources, corruption, mistrust and megalomaniac rivalries would reign supreme). As if this isn’t enough, there’s one other quandary for human beings: global warming and climate change. Mother Nature, like homeostasis, likes equilibrium and if upset this balance is; fail the entire mechanism undoubtedly will. These problems are multinational, meaning that no single country can solve them without the assistance of all peoples everywhere. All countries participate in these difficulties to different degrees; but all countries should work together to solve them for the greater good. Climatologists are virtually unanimous about the changing climate of this Earth as the direct result of human interference, ignorance, negligence and apathy. Relying on the ‘scientific method’ – a method of procedure consisting “systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” (Oxford Dictionaries) – climatologists stay true to the ‘nature of science’ – the “particular ways of observing, thinking, experimenting, and validating” (The Nature of Science, para. 1). Non-climatologists, however, use anecdotal and non-scientific data as ‘evidence’ against human induced climate change. Regardless of whether climate change is natural, changeable or even worth worrying about – what this report strives to conclude is how accurate both parties are to the scientific method.

Answer 3

2. Analysis
It has been said that the study of science is unlike any other disciplines of erudition. This is because science relies upon stringent regulations dictating the steps (muse, perceive, hypothesise, test, retest, record, analyse, evaluate, explicate, publish, review) by which to turn a questionable supposition into an unassailable veracity. This phenomenon is termed the scientific method and makes science an indisputable, interminable and constantly improving and evolving search for answers and principally, the truth.
2.1 The Essence of the Scientific Debate
Science is incomplete and all scientific conjectures are open to academic speculation. It is for this reason that science is so reputable. Without being open to unprejudiced, polemical inquisition; even the most incongruous of inferences could be misinterpreted as verities.
2.1.1 How effective are climate models?

With the increased interest in climate change, there has arisen an equally high number of new and diversifying technology for predicting future climate patters. The average result accumulated from these projection models is customarily accepted as the most precise extrapolation, “with the underlying assumption that different models provide statistically independent information evenly distributed around the true state”. This, however, could prove to be a labefaction of science as “there is reason to believe that this is not the best assumption”. Science, especially on topics of such universal import, cannot afford guesswork. Meteorological, climatological and barometric models are of “comparable complexity and are constructed in similar ways”. Developing these devices at the same institutions means that the limitations and fallibilities “tend to be fairly similar, contributing to the well-known problem of common model biases and possibly to an unrealistically small spread in the outcomes of model predictions”. Various studies have been conducted to quantify the magnitude of this predicament by enquiring how many models there effectively are and how to best determine this number. The conclusions elicited advocate the potential for hubristic climate forecasts as a consequence of contemporary methodologies for the interpretation of multi-model ensembles.

Answer 4

2.2 The Evidence Presented on Both Sides of the Debate
Retaining a degree of scepticism in science is healthy, in fact, it’s actually integral to a candid dissertation. The issue with the dispute between the two differing opinions in this case, is that climatologists appositely rely upon palpable historic data and scientific models (defective as they may be) whereas non-climatologists refer to subjective material.
2.2.1 Climatologists’ measurements and modelling

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

Answer 5

2.3 Describe in Detail what Part the Scientific Method Played in the Debate
As aforementioned, the scientific method is the foundation of virtuous science; and good science is good observation. Lamentably, only climatologists appear to be employing such laborious conformism techniques regarding testing and retesting hypotheses in germane order to derive and amass uncompromising informatics. Non-climatologists, conversely, have ostensibly disregarded the prerequisite to guarantee corroborated information, and instead are dependent on the unempirical influential aptitudes of the media. Consequently, the scientific debate played an unreciprocated role on behalf of the scientific community; a role that was neither active nor even desired by non-climatologists.
2.3.1 Modelling
Scientific models, as aforesaid, are not 100% efficacious; but then again, no scientific theorems really are. That said, even a predisposed model is more likely to provide factual evidence than none whatsoever. Such is the case with climatologists and non-climatologists. Whilst the precision of their models is a little off, the intent of climatologists is indubitably venerable. Which is more than one could say for non-climatologists as they elect and discount accordingly, whatever gen is most lucrative or malefic and inimical to their cause.
2.3.2 Peer review
Once again, climatologists are in a position of hegemony as a fundamental facet of the nature of science is the dissemination of current knowledge for proofreading by connoisseurs. The process of peer reviewing a paper has the foremost purpose of reconnoitring for inaccuracies; but also to explore, examine, expound and educate. If, through scientific investigation, the multitude can discover illumination, then the raison d’etre of science has been accomplished. Non-climatologists simply don’t concede this, as not to condone it, would be their ruination.
2.3.3. Tentative nature
There are two definitions of the term ‘tentative’. The first, demarcates something that is transitory, transient, ephemeral and evanescent as well as arbitrary, capricious, provisional and impermanent. The second delineates hesitancy, ambiguity, vacillation and ambivalence. Now, this may seem like a contradictory oxymoron with regards to science being the search for the truth, but the reality is, without pertinent deliberation the truth wouldn’t be very accurate. A tentative approach to solving a scientific curiosity is imperative, and also detracts from the assumed unbecoming superciliousness of the author. It is expected that all scientific texts maintain a degree of equitable cautiousness – stating the strengths and weaknesses of both sentimentalities. Non-climatologists, however, remain un-conforming to a position of neutrality where impartiality and objectivity are of paramount importance.

Answer 6

2.4 What Position did the Scientific Community Take and why?
In any argument there are three possible stances one can adopt in reaction to any given declaration: endorsement, disapprobation or nonalignment with either.
2.4.1 Climatologists – why?
Climatologists concur that global warming and climate change is very real indeed and that it does pose serious concerns on economic, political, social and especially environmental scales. The scientific community is in accord with the dangers global warming will, not may, inevitably have on environments, their resources and their inhabitants (in which category we humans are included). This affirmation coincides with evidence taken from the field and wouldn’t be stated unless correct to the best of their knowledge.
2.4.2 Non-climatologists – why?
Non-climatologists, antithetically, cogitate that global warming is apocryphal; a contrived and fictitious means by which to incur more tax by avaricious, acquisitive and rapacious unprincipled and unscrupulous plutocrats. Some non-climatologists opine that climate change is real, is or isn’t our fault, and that there’s nothing we can do to stop it so we should just live life every day as if it will be our last.

Answer 7

Further to my previous entry on anthropogenic global warming here is the latest of my treatise i will submit on Monday.

Answer 8

I still have some work to go in the body and the conclusion and of cause the references but I'm happy where it is for now. Let me know what you guys think :D