Global Warming---Oops!!

[1Sam15]

This is where your 97% reference came from. The same journal published this scathing critique of the article you cited:

Isn't it interesting how STRIDENT your tone becomes when it is YOUR information? "Scathing"! Oooo!

Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct”

OOpsy! The dread "politically correct" tell has shown up! Now it's "political".

Certainly you should understand that good science is cited because it's good science...oh except in Climate Change...where it's incest ONLY.

But let's go on.


First I should note that Anderegg addresses Bodenstein here:

Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities

Which will provide a detailed response by the authors should you be so inclined.

My take?

Well, the MOST INTERESTING BIT from Bodenstein's article, to my mind was this bit which you FAILED to note (so I'll put it in big letters)

The majority of climate scientists favor some form of anthropogenic CC (and that view is not disputed here)

Not sure you caught that bit.


It should be noted that "citation analysis" IS actually a real "thing". Regardless of how Bodenstein wishes to deconstruct it. Indeed Bodenstein's critiques would serve the purpose of this type of critique to effectively DESTROY AN ENTIRE AREA OF SCIENCE (citation analysis).

This is the epistemological "atomic bomb" approach that denialists of all sorts often resort to. If they can't find a SPECIFIC problem they work to overturn entire fields in hopes that the smoldering ruins won't harm THEM.

These are not minor criticisms.

And yet Bodenstein STILL explicitly agrees that the majority of climate scientists feel that AGW is real.

Funny that.

But BOdenstein also mischaracterizes Anderegg et al.'s position about "minority view points"...I'll let Anderegg address this:

Mistakenly, Bodenstein (1) claims that we implied that minority viewpoints should be ignored and that our study tarred individuals with group metrics. These two comments disregard the above statement where we did not suggest ignoring minority viewpoints but instead, suggested that the relative weight and credentials of viewpoints should be presented along with the viewpoint as contextual information. Furthermore, we stated explicitly: “Ultimately, of course, scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given the immediacy attendant to the state of debate over perception of climate science, we must seek estimates while confidence builds” (2). This risk management framework of synthesizing expert perception and agreement clearly did not preclude, but instead, complemented and in fact, relied on, direct evaluation of the scientific data (3).

Your second reference may be more accurate ... but it claims nowhere near the 97% figure you cited.

This paper mentions a different study with only 75% consensus agreement.

Did you not read the entire article?

"...Of these specialists, 96.2%...answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4%...answered yes to question 2."

[/INDENT]Only after narrowing the statistical selection window considerably did the authors achieve a higher consensus figure

OOoo! "statistical selection window"! That sounds impressive! Wow! Ahem...you WILL note that the "narrowing" was in keeping with the general hypothesis being tested. The goal of the narrowing was to CORRELATE EXPERTISE WITH AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH AGW.

Which it did.

... just like your first reference. The same criticism cited by Brodenstein earlier applies equally here:

Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse.
​

Look, you asked what SOURCES I had that show 97% of the world's climate scientists disagree with the denialist/skeptic viewpoint and I provided them.

If you don't like the numbers, then show me some of your own that show these numbers are not only "questionable" but actually ARE INCORRECT and that indeed >50% of the earth's climate professionals agree with the denialists and skeptics.

Oh wait...you can't. Because that isn't reality. And no one has EVER found that to be the case when any assessment of the data shows up.

Oh well. Have fun with the 3%!

 

[1Sam15]

The problem with ocean temperature is that ocean temperature is not uniform. There is a lot of ocean and very few temperature sensors. One metric commonly seen is sea surface temperatures, but even that is inconsistent because ocean turn-over can skew the surface temperatures for many years.

You DO realize that the ocean isn't like a big ol' lake, right? That indeed there are wide variety of currents bringing water up from depth (cold as in the California Current) or sinking cold water down from the surface (as in the Thermohaline Current in the North Atlantic offshore of Europe).

But I would be interested in your citation and explanation of this "skew the surface temperatures for many years" hypothesis of yours.

I actually would like to know what you are referring to here. I had the joy of actually working on a NOrth Atlantic research cruise when I was employed as an oceanographic chemical technician in my youth. At that time we were tracking a variety of ocean currents and "deep water formation events" in the North Atlantic. So I'm interested in learning more about ocean dynamics.

Thanks in advance.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well, the MOST INTERESTING BIT from Bodenstein's article, to my mind was this bit which you FAILED to note (so I'll put it in big letters)
...
Not sure you caught that bit.

I did. Notice that I didn't take issue with it. Neither did I take issue with the 75% consensus figure.

My OPINION has been and remains though, that "global warming" has been greatly overstated for political purposes.

Certainly you should understand that good science is cited because it's good science...oh except in Climate Change...where it's incest ONLY.

No argument with that.

 

[1Sam15]

I did. Notice that I didn't take issue with it. Neither did I take issue with the 75% consensus figure.

My OPINION has been and remains though, that "global warming" has been greatly overstated for political purposes.

And of course you have NO support for that claim.

No argument with that.

I'll take your comment with a grain of salt until you have a peer reviewed publication.

Until then your opinion on published science is...worthless.

 

[NightHawkeye]

And of course you have NO support for that claim.

There is plenty of support for that claim/

I'll take your comment with a grain of salt until you have a peer reviewed publication.

Thank you for that excellent example of listening only to your chosen sources.

Until then your opinion on published science is...worthless.

I'm deeply wounded.

 

[1Sam15]

There is plenty of support for that claim/

Then you can provide some?

Thank you for that excellent example of listening only to your chosen sources.

Can't help it if I actually have been peer reviewed and I actually have science background.

My sources so far have been just fine.

I'm deeply wounded.

I would ask you to answer honestly, but I doubt you are capable, but I'll ask anyway: would you take advice or opinion on Christian Salvation from ME?

 

[NightHawkeye]

I would ask you to answer honestly, but I doubt you are capable ...

For someone trained in making unbiased observations, you pre-judge a lot.

... but I'll ask anyway: would you take advice or opinion on Christian Salvation from ME?

I believe we've discussed the Bible previously.

Feel free to make the argument. I'll evaluate it on its merits.

 

[Edial]

No irony at all, really.

Scientists have seen some increase in sea ice in the Southern Ocean and there's a couple of pretty solid hypotheses for this:

1. The ozone depletion over Antarctica has caused stratospheric cooling which changes wind patterns. In fact this lines up well with the current situation since the winds drove the ice out around the ship. The scientists were seeing this a while back.

2. Massive ice loss from the LAND of Antarctica which dumps a lot of fresh water into the Southern Ocean and changes mixing dynamics in the water there.

So, indeed, there is no irony at all. In fact this actually SUPPORTS some of the science that's been out there about this for 6 or 7 years.

But how come they never said all this and just "we got stuck in our own experiment"?

It seems like they are taking it the right way.

Hey, look at the irony, so let's just laugh it off.

 

[1Sam15]

But how come they never said all this and just "we got stuck in our own experiment"?

An offhand comment doesn't really matter one way or another.

If you would like here are the references that explain the situation with SEA and LAND Ice around Antarctica (going back several years...to last decade)

Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent - Turner - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html

Unfortunately in discussions like this, as in any technical discussion, the key differences rise up between "common parlance" and "off the cuff" comments versus the actual, sometimes more than decade old science that is out there and has been out there for some time.

Hey, look at the irony, so let's just laugh it off.

Hmmmm, well, without getting into their "minds" and trying to read anything deeper it could be a meta-irony of "Oh yeah the usual denialists will make hay off this, so let's just make the joke now!"

I don't know. Certainly the least scientifically savvy have jumped on it and, no matter how many times people point out that this is almost EXACTLY what global warming science can easily explain, it just doesn't matter.

The science is hard. This is not a "simple topic". But when it is continually mischaracterized and the only things that ever make it through to the general pubic are the non-science "off-the-cuff" stuff then, sadly the general public demand to be treated as non-entities in the debate because they DON'T want to take the time to learn the science.

THis is a serious debate that EVERYONE should be involved in, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is ignorant of the actual SCIENCE gets their opinion treated equally. It is a sad, hard fact of technical topics.

I wish science were easier or America valued science and engineering more. But it doesn't and we see it time and again when people oversimplify and demand to be told why their "cartoon view" isn't reality.

Everyone wants and easy handle. Sadly in this case there really isn't one.

 

[1Sam15]

For someone trained in making unbiased observations, you pre-judge a lot.

It's not a pre-judging. I've simply seen you be dishonest too many times.

Sorry but I know you for the fruit you bear.

Feel free to make the argument. I'll evaluate it on its merits.

Interesting. You seemed to blithely ignore my earlier comments on being truthful in your posts. And I even used bible passages.

Didn't seem to hold any water for you THEN.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I've simply seen you be dishonest too many times.

No you haven't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=serV18MirGg

 

[1Sam15]

No you haven't.

You and I both know differently

(You just hope I'm too stupid to not see your dishonesty....and you are doubling down on it over and over again. I suggest you take it up with your "God" next time you hang with him.)

 

[NightHawkeye]

You and I both know differently

(You just hope I'm too stupid to not see your dishonesty....and you are doubling down on it over and over again. I suggest you take it up with your "God" next time you hang with him.)

Either prove it or cease and desist with the accusation. It's really bad form on this forum.

 

[Vylo]

Either prove it or cease and desist with the accusation. It's really bad form on this forum.

There is a thread right on the first page with you making an accusation about 2013 being one of the coldest years on record that is immediately proven false.

There is another about 2013 being a record slow year for tropical storms, which is also shown to be false with 5 minutes of research.

 

[1Sam15]

Either prove it or cease and desist with the accusation. It's really bad form on this forum.

Well, over in another thread just a day or two ago you decided to consistenly mischaracterize my points...and OTHER POSTERS noted this.

But I decided to do a quick search for your "usual" modus operandi the "I am glad we agree" line in which you grossly misrepresent other people's positions as if they are somehow in agreement with you on some fundamental level which is, almost always undercut by the posters response.

Here's what I got on a quick cursory examination:

Excellent!



Glad you agree that the most that man-made "global warming" can do is a small change in global climate relative to "natural changes" ... even assuming, as Imbrie did, that all fossil fuels are depleted before global warming runs its course.

Glad I could help you see the light.

LOL ... at least you don't dispute the $150,000 of debt every taxpayer is currently saddled with. Glad we agree about that.

Here’s how the other poster responded to that:

Um, I didn't say a word one way or the other, because THAT ISN'T HOW THE NATIONAL DEBT WORKS!

And that's still not what I was talking about.

Glad we agree that Alan Grayson gets a ten for racist hate against the TEA party.

Here’s how the other poster responded to that comment:

According to you. That's quite a twist of logic. Hence, my point stands.

I like this particular example of your usual approach:

Glad we agree it has been shown that Obama represented himself for years as having been born in Kenya.


[NHE appreciates when the other side recognizes indisputable facts. ]

What we agree on is that facts confuse some folks. Glad I could clear that up for you.

LOL ... it is noted that no facts were disputed.

It is noted the confusion continues.

Glad we agree on all that.
...
Glad to see you agree on the matter of LBJ's character and proclivity for racial slurs.

To which the other poster responded:

Not as glad as I am seeing you prove over and over and over that you can never admit being wrong.

Not as glad as I am seeing you prove over and over and over that you can never admit being wrong.

You know, I’m simply FASCINATED at how you do this over and over and over to everyone on here and in most cases it is clear they DON’T agree with you or the point you are trying to make it sound like is you are all on the same page even when people aren’t on the same page as you.

Why do you do this?

 

[Edial]

An offhand comment doesn't really matter one way or another.

If you would like here are the references that explain the situation with SEA and LAND Ice around Antarctica (going back several years...to last decade)

Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent - Turner - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html

Unfortunately in discussions like this, as in any technical discussion, the key differences rise up between "common parlance" and "off the cuff" comments versus the actual, sometimes more than decade old science that is out there and has been out there for some time.



Hmmmm, well, without getting into their "minds" and trying to read anything deeper it could be a meta-irony of "Oh yeah the usual denialists will make hay off this, so let's just make the joke now!"

I don't know. Certainly the least scientifically savvy have jumped on it and, no matter how many times people point out that this is almost EXACTLY what global warming science can easily explain, it just doesn't matter.

The science is hard. This is not a "simple topic". But when it is continually mischaracterized and the only things that ever make it through to the general pubic are the non-science "off-the-cuff" stuff then, sadly the general public demand to be treated as non-entities in the debate because they DON'T want to take the time to learn the science.

THis is a serious debate that EVERYONE should be involved in, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is ignorant of the actual SCIENCE gets their opinion treated equally. It is a sad, hard fact of technical topics.

I wish science were easier or America valued science and engineering more. But it doesn't and we see it time and again when people oversimplify and demand to be told why their "cartoon view" isn't reality.

Everyone wants and easy handle. Sadly in this case there really isn't one.

I was born in USSR and came to the US when 16.
I used to worship scientists.
I still respect them very much - I always respected people who tend to think outside of a box.

Unfortunately however, the political, corporate and governmental influences became so persuasive I do not see how a scientist has a freedom to express his/her true opinion. Same concerning the medical industry.

There could however develop some off-the-record real solutions if some scientists and engineers get together and address some difficult issues of the world over a huge samovar of hot tea and some blackberry brandy.

 

[MachZer0]

There is ice at the poles, hence, global warming is teh lye!

Al Gore's polar bears are happy once again

 

[MachZer0]

I did. Notice that I didn't take issue with it. Neither did I take issue with the 75% consensus figure.

My OPINION has been and remains though, that "global warming" has been greatly overstated for political purposes.




No argument with that.

What we have is global warming religionists pushing a dominionism ideology

 

[Orogeny]

What we have is global warming religionists pushing a dominionism ideology

Isn't it interesting that the religious so often point to things and say '__________ is a religion! Those people are just religionists!' as though religion is is a bad thing.

Pot, kettle, etc.

 

[Vylo]

Isn't it interesting that the religious so often point to things and say '__________ is a religion! Those people are just religionists!' as though religion is is a bad thing.

Pot, kettle, etc.

They also don't understand the definition of religion.