“Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is NOT the main [dominant] culprit affecting changes in climate. It is just one of a diverse set of human and natural climate forcings.”
Alvin Stone of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales [h/t to Marc Hendrickx] made the following comment [highlight added] in the discussion at The Conversation in the post
Okay, let’s talk spin then. It is very well established that the great majority of climate scientists (in the 90% band up or down a couple of notches depending on the survey) agree that climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the main culprit.
Many were working in this field before it was fashionable and have pretty much been of this understanding for a few decades.
Now, a tiny minority doubt this case but none has published a single paper that undermines the fundamental science.
So, your arguments suggest that you are right and that 95-97% of climate scientists are either knowingly misrepresenting their position for whatever reason are too stupid to understand the real science.
So, how would you classify the climate scientists who support anthropogenic emissions hypothesis. In your eyes are they liars, easily misled or just plain stupid?
This statement by Mr. Stone is not an isolated example, unfortunately, but is a view that is erroneously communicated. This is why I and a group of Fellows of the American Geophysical Union published the following article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
Or for an even wider demonstration that the comment by Mr. Stone misrepresents the actual understanding of the science, see
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington,D.C., 208 pp
where it is written
“…..the traditional global mean TOA radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change—global mean surface temperature response—while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing.”
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is NOT the main [dominant] culprit affecting changes in climate. It is just one of a diverse set of human and natural climate forcings.