List some reasons scientists find it hard to agree on climate change.?

Question

List some reasons scientists find it hard to agree on climate change.?

Answer 1

I think the biggest legitimate argument is that the enviroment is such a large system, it is very difficult to understand how we are effecting it vs. what is a nature ebb and flow of the enviroment.  We are currently in an unusally warm period during a cycle of ice ages.  The argument for global warming is that we can understand the impact of things like carbon dioxide in closed systems, and then extrapolate to the enviroment as a whole.

Answer 2

Actually they don't find it hard to agree on whether it is happening or whether we are responsible since the evidence is so overwhelming.

There is disagreement on details but that's to be expected in every area of science, the basics are all worked out and pretty well agreed to by essentially everyone who is qualified to judge them.

Answer 3

Your question has a false premise.  There is almost universal agreement that the globe is warming, it is well documented and available from 100's of sources, for free on the Internet.  NASA space photos going back 40 years give good proof.

In fact the only reports doubting it are published in in-house magazines from oil companies, coal companies, auto industry, etc.  These reports then make it into the mainstream media and given more respect then they deserve.

There is legitimate  question about how much of it is natural and how much is not, but the fact is the earth is warming.

Answer 4

I think it is a perspective thing.  The earth is a very complex system and the climate is one aspect of that complexity.  Looking back through earth's history, we are continually finding evidence for climate extremes and rapid climate shifts at different periods.  From this perspective, it would be surprising, or actually astonishing, if the climate wasn't changing currently.  On any time scale you look at, there is evidence of climate change even before the question of man's production of CO2 could be considered.

From another perspective, the dynamics of the climate can be broken down to a limited number of primary factors.  A lot of complex systems can be addressed this way-most of what happens is due to a small number of inputs, as most other inputs are trivial and can be ignored.  The climate modellers have basically taken this approach, and developed mathematical systems that can be used to evaluate how changing any of those important factors will cause the climate to change.  According to most of the major proponents of the theory of greenhouse warming caused by man, no important factors can be modified except CO2 content to produce the sort of changes that we have measured in the recent past.

This is where the disagreement begins.  Are the modern data comparable to historic data? Are the models really mimicing the behavior of the real system?  Are the assumptions in the models valid? Do the models actually treat the system in an acceptable way (do they account for all of the important factors in an acceptable fashion)?  How REAL are the model predictions.  The modellers say they are d**n good.

Fundamentally, the disagreement is between those who do not see signs of extraordinary climatic behavior versus those who believe the models tell them something that has an essence of reality.  And it is really a sharp divide.  if you take the conclusions from the models out of the argument, there is really no evidence that man has an important role in the changing of the climate.  The models are THE only "proof" of the theory.

It's a real dilemma, because if the modellers are right, there is some serious trouble on the horizon, and we better get on it fast to minimize the impacts.

If the modellers are wrong, there is serious trouble on the horizon and no matter how much money we spend trying to control the system, there is little we can do, and we would be better off spending money to adapt to the inevitible than spending limited resources trying to control nature.  

Wouldn't be the first time that man was faced with a rapid and severe climate shift, and I suspect it won't be the last either.

I have to say that I am not a believer in the models.  That was probably obvious.