While I'm neither a scientist or mathematician, my son got his undergrad degrees in Physics and Math and then went on to get a PhD in Physics, specifically Condensed Matter Physics and now he works at NIST, a National Lab in Boulder, CO, as a research scientist. In all there are three Nation Labs on the Boulder Federal campus; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology; the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - managed by UCAR, is a National Science Foundation R&D Center; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - the federal government's top agency for monitoring our climate, the space environment, and ocean resources.
In addition, within 50 miles of Boulder, there are four more National Labs; the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) - dedicated to exploring and studying our atmosphere and its interaction with the sun, oceans, biosphere, and society also in Boulder. The Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) - dedicated to research targeted at all aspects of Earth System Science and communicating its findings to the global scientific community located on the University of Colorado, Boulder's East Campus. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - the nation's primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D located in Golden, CO (25 miles south and also home of Coors Brewery). The Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) - directs research in the atmospheric sciences into practical applications in weather and climate located in Fort Collins, CO (about 50 miles north of Boulder).
Together, these 7 National labs are world leaders in the study of the world's climate and work closely with all major labs around the world studying the world's climate.
Just a bit of background on issue of 'Global Warming' would be helpful. Scientists studying ice core samples dating back some 6 million years have long known that the world's average temperature runs in cycles. In fact, currently, we are some 4°C (7.2°F) cooler than 12,000 years ago (the start of man's impact on the weather) and are in a naturally occurring warming cycle. The 'Global Warming' debate is based on the current faster rate of temperature increase (not that it's increasing because that is a naturally occurring cycle) and what, or who, is the cause. While there is some disagreement on how much man's use of fossil fuels has added to the rate of warming in the current global warming cycle, there is no disagreement that man's use of fossil fuels has had an impact. It's also true that the computer models used by scientist around the world have not mapped to the observed data as well as they had predicted, but it's clear that the warming cycle we are in is ramping at a rate faster than any previously observed during the last 6 million years of data.
Because the models are used by the faction that argues that man is 'killing the planet' and Global Warming will be the death of us all unless draconian measures are taken world wide today, their accuracy in predicting the future is fundamental to the whole issue. So, the fact that the models predictions aren't mapping well to observable data means that the debate over man's contribution to the problem or even if there is a problem is problematic. So, therein lies the basis for the argument.
Most scientists believe that long term effects of the greenhouse gasses released by burning fossil fuels will ultimately cause the warming cycle to peak at a higher temperature than the average high. Some predict that it might peak at 4°C (7.2°F) higher than the normal high. This will cause issues with global weather intensity, crop growth paterns, and ocean levels. With the increased energy in the atmosphere due to the rising temperature, we are already seeing weather spikes, both highs and lows, that are larger than those seen during the previous 300 yrs and scientists believe that the extra energy put into the global weather system is the cause.
Now, the $6 Million question. How much of this rate change in temperature rise is due to man's impact? If it's all of it, then changes in man's impact will slow the rate of change. If man's impact is small, then changes in man's impact will have no effect. That's where the science and modeling runs into issues. Intuitively, adding greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, reducing the ozone layer, and all the other 'bad' things mad does should be adding to the rate change so reducing those 'bad' things should help. Problem is that as we measure increase of the 'bad' things we've added to the atmosphere, the observed results don't fit the models of what affect those 'bad' things should produce.
Bottom line is that the models everyone uses to claim 'the sky is falling' aren't accurate and even small variations from predicted to observed are huge drivers for the validity and even the believably of future predictions. So, we are left with trying to divine what the truth is. The scientists are convinced that we are on a bad temperature rise curve but can't use their modeling to 'prove' it because the observables don't match the model's predictions well enough to use them to absolutely say with certainty that the models can accurately predict future temperature and weather patterns.
I, for one, assume that man's actions are having a negative effect on the globe in general, not just the weather and temperatures. That said, I've not seen any data, not hypothesis based on ??, but real, scientific data supported by the scientific method, that shows me how much of the effect man is causing. Some scientists and environmentalists suggest man is responsible for most or all of the rate of rise and predicted dire consequences while other scientists and people working in the field suggest our impact may be as little as 4% of the change.
So I ask myself, how does a nation or the world agree on a hugely expensive policy, estimated in the Hundred's of Trillions of Dollars, that could cripple the world's economies and cause the deaths of millions of the poor and impoverished from lack of support, based upon a set of models that track so poorly to observable data? The answer is . . . we don't. Further, as China and India together make up 34% of the Global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (the US share is next at 15% with Russia next at 5%) and they have yet to acknowledge their responsibility, what affect will the entire rest of the world's draconian efforts really have?
