Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SR22pilot]

First, yawn. Appeals to authority and consensus are weak arguments. But that said, can you please provide the source for your 99% figure?

I know of no better way than to review refereed journals.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

 

[SageBrush]

Congratulations - that makes you are a moron too!

Can YOU answer these questions ?


1. What is the forcing of atmospheric CO2 ?

2. how do you know that the sun or orbit cycles is the main forcing from that 10C increase epoch ?

3. In the last 100 years is the ocean taking up or releasing CO2 ?

 

[ZsoZso]

First, yawn. Appeals to authority and consensus are weak arguments. But that said, can you please provide the source for your 99% figure?

Science Confirms Global Warming

Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15 in the chart above) agree closely (literature survey 10 did not use rejection alone). The five comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%.

 

[Swampgator]

I know of no better way than to review refereed journals.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

I would suggest to actually read that Cook et all paper. It is garbage.
He looked at over 11,000 papers. Only 32% even express any opinion on AGW. 67% did not express an opinion. Then read what the definition of agreement with he consensus is. “To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1-3 in table 2).” It is that combined group, (“endorse AGW” on Table 4) that the 97.1% figure refers to. Hence that is the number of papers that, according to Cook et. al., implied that humans at least contribute to global warming. The number that imply that humans are the primary cause (category 1) is some smaller percentage which Cook et. al. do not report. In other words, if a paper even held out the possibility that human emissions were causing recent climate change, they were counted as part of the 97%

And lastly, the lead author is affiliated with the Skeptical Science website.

Science is not a democracy and it is NEVER driven by consensus. I read and communicate with real scientists every day who disagree with this "consensus"
Websites like skeptical science are put at the top of google searches and try and discredit real climate scientists because they have different opinions from the fake, manufactured consensus. Real science is always done by the skeptical. Watch out and beware of people trying to shut down discussion in the name of "settled science" or some other nonsense.

 

[SageBrush]

Science Confirms Global Warming

Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15 in the chart above) agree closely (literature survey 10 did not use rejection alone). The five comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%.

Rejection is too low a threshold. It implies the author either
1, cannot read a thermometer; or
2, failed the spectrometry exam in freshman chemistry
3. Is a flat earther

These people may exist but they are not going to be published by peer reviewed science journals.

But look, EVERY legitimate science organization in the world agrees outright with the IPCC or says the same. I'm not sure what part of that swampy does not understand, but I do not understand flat Earthers either.

 

[Swampgator]

Science Confirms Global Warming

Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15 in the chart above) agree closely (literature survey 10 did not use rejection alone). The five comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%.

That one is even worse. Using rejection as the criteria for the consensus? In other words, if a paper did not outright REJECT the AGW hypothesis, it was counted as part of the 99%
In other words, an author could conclude that "while recent temperatures are within the levels of natural variability, some attribution to man made emissions cannot be ruled out. Further studies are needed." and this would be counted as agreement with AGW hypothesis. Give me a break.

 

[Swampgator]

I would suggest to actually read that Cook et all paper. It is garbage.
He looked at over 11,000 papers. Only 32% even express any opinion on AGW. 67% did not express an opinion. Then read what the definition of agreement with he consensus is. “To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1-3 in table 2).” It is that combined group, (“endorse AGW” on Table 4) that the 97.1% figure refers to. Hence that is the number of papers that, according to Cook et. al., implied that humans at least contribute to global warming. The number that imply that humans are the primary cause (category 1) is some smaller percentage which Cook et. al. do not report. In other words, if a paper even held out the possibility that human emissions were causing recent climate change, they were counted as part of the 97%

And lastly, the lead author is affiliated with the Skeptical Science website.

Science is not a democracy and it is NEVER driven by consensus. I read and communicate with real scientists every day who disagree with this "consensus"
Websites like skeptical science are put at the top of google searches and try and discredit real climate scientists because they have different opinions from the fake, manufactured consensus. Real science is always done by the skeptical. Watch out and beware of people trying to shut down discussion in the name of "settled science" or some other nonsense.

Haha. Winfield is on a disagree tear this morning.

 

[ohmman]

But that said, can you please provide the source for your 99% figure?

I already answered this and posted a plethora of non-Cook sources. You can't keep going back on it. But I love that you disagree with the consensus figure, or that there is one, and then in the same breath say that consensus doesn't matter anyway.

First, yawn. Appeals to authority and consensus are weak arguments.

Great, you're calling out logical fallacies again? I suppose that means your posts are pristine. Let's check everything you've posted since that.

And lastly, the lead author is affiliated with the Skeptical Science website.

Ad hominem

I read and communicate with real scientists every day who disagree with this "consensus"

Appeal to authority! I think you just said it was a weak argument. It's using the word "real" here that sets it apart, in case you're wondering why.

Websites like skeptical science are put at the top of google searches and try and discredit real climate scientists because they have different opinions from the fake, manufactured consensus.

Ad hominem and conspiracy.

Come on, you can do better! I believe in you!

 

[ZsoZso]

Rejection is too low a threshold. It implies the author either
1, cannot read a thermometer; or
2, failed the spectrometry exam in freshman chemistry
3. Is a flat earther

These people may exist but they are not going to be published by peer reviewed science journals.

But look, EVERY legitimate science organization in the world agrees outright with the IPCC or says the same. I'm not sure what part of that swampy does not understand, but I do not understand flat Earthers either.

However, rejection of AGW is exactly what Swampgator and jrad advocate, so it is very much relevant measure to this discussion. What that survey demonstrates is that these guys have the support of 0.06% of the scientific literature, which is roughly in the same category as crackpot theories, flat-earthers and the like.

 

[SageBrush]

However, rejection of AGW is exactly what Swampgator and jrad advocate, so it is very much relevant measure to this discussion. What that survey demonstrates is that these guys have the support of 0.06% of the scientific literature, which is roughly in the same category as crackpot theories, flat-earthers and the like.

I think I read swampy the pharmacist saying that the antropogenic component is real but minor. That is actually a pretty common refrain amongst denialists these days whom have been moved the goalposts from the jrad position of no warming detected.

The best FUD and propaganda always has a grain of truth. Swampy has adopted a veneer of legitimacy.

 

[nwdiver]

This "because physics" refrain is tiring. I provided you with a great source of information on how obliquity cycles are a close match for glaciation cycles. Did you read any of that?

Yes. As has been mentioned repeatedly orbital cycles explain the timing but not the magnitude. Slight warming caused by the orbital wobbles. ~10C temperature change caused mostly by a change in CO2. I explained the physics too.

... it's a SMALL increase in temperature. NOT a 10C rise. What causes the 10C rise? Warm water cannot hold as much gas in solution as cold water. If the oceans warm a little atmospheric CO2 levels will rise which alters the radiative balance which causes more warming => more CO2 comes out of the oceans => more warming until an equilibrium is reached after a ~10C rise. If it's not CO2 that drives the 10C rise.... WHAT. IS. IT?????

From your source;

'Yet, if CO2 is responsible for 100% of modern warming, why has it produced only a 0.8°C increase'
​

Funny how often people forget about the oceans. Again... >90% of the thermal energy is being absorbed by the oceans. If not for that buffer we would be suffering from a ~12C increase. It takes time to heat the oceans. As the child-in-chief says... they're 'big water'.

For the 22nd time unless I missed it in the last few pages of tripe TL;DR.... What's causing the warming we observe today?

 

[Swampgator]

I already answered this and posted a plethora of non-Cook sources. You can't keep going back on it. But I love that you disagree with the consensus figure, or that there is one, and then in the same breath say that consensus doesn't matter anyway.

Great, you're calling out logical fallacies again? I suppose that means your posts are pristine. Let's check everything you've posted since that.

Ad hominem

Appeal to authority! I think you just said it was a weak argument. It's using the word "real" here that sets it apart, in case you're wondering why.

Ad hominem and conspiracy.

Come on, you can do better! I believe in you!

Your other sources are poor.

Zimmerman paper for example: There were 2 questions asked:
#1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant
#2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

If you answered risen for #1 and Yes to #2, you were included as agreeing with the consensus. But the consensus is proffered as agreement that human CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm. CO2 emissions were not even in the question. And the results were 82% yes on question #2. If the actual question had more more specific to CO2 emissions, the results would have been lower. Just human building cities contributes to localized warming, so I'm surprised the answers to #2 were not 100%

As for the first paper you stated 1372 scientists This was the total survey sample size. They then split the respondents into smaller groups based upon their publication numbers. They then use some fancy language to support their conclusion shown in the abstract. But the 97-98% figure they reference in the abstract is not found in the actual paper results. This is backing into the result you are after, and not science.

The third one, a survey of 698 Big Ten non-climate scientists is almost unreadable. But it again use "human activity" to then conclude the consensus on AGW. This is junk as well.

Keep going. This is fun Ohmman

 

[nwdiver]

as agreement that human CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm.

........... ok............ what else could it be???? For the 23rd time......

And this isn't just the process of elimination.... the math fits.

 

[Swampgator]

........... ok............ what else could it be???? For the 23rd time......

And this isn't just the process of elimination.... the math fits.

You remind me of a little kid throwing his sucker in the dirt. When I show something contrary to your religion, you pout and scream over and over again the same thing, hoping someone will give you a new sucker.

 

[ohmman]

Your other sources are poor.

Zimmerman paper for example: There were 2 questions asked:
#1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant
#2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

If you answered risen for #1 and Yes to #2, you were included as agreeing with the consensus. But the consensus is proffered as agreement that human CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm. CO2 emissions were not even in the question. And the results were 82% yes on question #2. If the actual question had more more specific to CO2 emissions, the results would have been lower. Just human building cities contributes to localized warming, so I'm surprised the answers to #2 were not 100%

As for the first paper you stated 1372 scientists This was the total survey sample size. They then split the respondents into smaller groups based upon their publication numbers. They then use some fancy language to support their conclusion shown in the abstract. But the 97-98% figure they reference in the abstract is not found in the actual paper results. This is backing into the result you are after, and not science.

The third one, a survey of 698 Big Ten non-climate scientists is almost unreadable. But it again use "human activity" to then conclude the consensus on AGW. This is junk as well.

Keep going. This is fun Ohmman

Excellent. So while I find your fiddling a little disingenuous, let's prove my assumption wrong.

First, we should be clear what you're saying, because I want to work off of precisely your standpoint such that you don't falsely accuse me of building a straw man again.

You call the sources poor, but you mean that they're poor in regards to attributing warming to CO2, is that correct? You do agree that there is a consensus on global mean temperature warming, and on "human activity" being responsible, correct? Can we move forward with those being your priors?

 

[nwdiver]

You remind me of a little kid throwing his sucker in the dirt. When I show something contrary to your religion, you pout and scream over and over again the same thing, hoping someone will give you a new sucker.

Seriously; If you're not just a pathetic troll, what's the alternative?

CO2 fits almost perfectly. The forcing of an additional ~120ppm is measured at ~1.5w/m^2. Let's run the numbers. 1.5w = 5400J and the Earth is 510.1T m^2.

So the measured ~1.5w/m^2 forcing of CO2 should now be adding ~2.4E22J/yr. Let's do a science and test this...

Pretty good match. Especially considering that there are parts of the ocean Argo isn't yet measuring. Ok detective. We've got a body with a bullet hole in it. And a gun. The coroner found the bullet that matches the gun. But you don't think this person died from a gunshot wound. So..... what else could it be other than CO2?

 

[Swampgator]

Excellent. So while I find your fiddling a little disingenuous, let's prove my assumption wrong.

First, we should be clear what you're saying, because I want to work off of precisely your standpoint such that you don't falsely accuse me of building a straw man again.

You call the sources poor, but you mean that they're poor in regards to attributing warming to CO2, is that correct? You do agree that there is a consensus on global mean temperature warming, and on "human activity" being responsible, correct? Can we move forward with those being your priors?

I would agree on point one.
As far as point two, yes,
But the actual application of that is so vague as to be meaningless. What does responsible mean? What percentage of attribution is agreed upon? What does human activity mean? Deforestation? Only CO2 emissions?

Would you agree that invocation of consensus is a tool to shut down further debate on an issue? Can we move forward with that as one of your priors?

 

[Swampgator]

Seriously; If you're not just a pathetic troll, what's the alternative?

CO2 fits almost perfectly. The forcing of an additional ~120ppm is measured at ~1.5w/m^2. Let's run the numbers. 1.5w = 5400J and the Earth is 510.1T m^2.

View attachment 429841

So the measured ~1.5w/m^2 forcing of CO2 should now be adding ~2.4E22J/yr. Let's do a science and test this...


View attachment 429842

Pretty good match. Especially considering that there are parts of the ocean Argo isn't yet measuring. Ok detective. We've got a body with a bullet hole in it. And a gun. The coroner found the bullet that matches the gun. But you don't think this person died from a gunshot wound. So..... what else could it be other than CO2?

You never answer any of my questions you slippery little sucker.
You are now on ignore Mr nwdiver.

 

[nwdiver]

You never answer any of my questions you slippery little sucker.
You are now on ignore Mr nwdiver.

LOL; Which question(s)? I guess you really do hate math. Apologies... but you can't have physics w/o math. It's no wonder you can't understand AGW...

 

[Mader Levap]

Those are natural predators that need to eat. Not the same thing. Human kill more than all of them (mostly chickens) but that is to survive.
OK, I'll give in to the leftist police. Let's start killing some Eagles!

It is pretty obvious your opposition against wind turbines on grounds that they kill birds is just excuse considering there are sources of deaths of birds that dwarfs wind turbines and as we can see they are not any problem for you whatsoever.