Global Warming

[RickG]

What's wrong with showing you research done by someone who has considered what the 97% may have ignored? Are you not open to new research? If that's the case, then the future will be stuck with only what is known at the current time. It's an indication of an unwillingness to learn.

Please provide a link to the paper of your choice. Then point out what they are presenting that is being ignored by main stream climatologists.

 

[Aldebaran]

Please provide a link to the paper of your choice. Then point out what they are presenting that is being ignored by main stream climatologists.

Already did that. Apparently, it doesn't go along with the 97%, so it was automatically rejected.

 

[RickG]

Already did that. Apparently, it doesn't go along with the 97%, so it was automatically rejected.

The only thing I have rejected is opinions from sources (blogs & media) who have no background in science, especially climate science. Also, I asked for two things. (1) Cite one of the 97% consensus papers and show where the science is wrong in it. (2) Show what science is being ignored by the 97%.

 

[Heissonear]

History will clearly show the 97% figure was hook, line, and sinker disinformation.

And CO2 should have never been demonized.

 

[Heissonear]

In respect to the topic of Global Warming, the warming since the Little Ice Age has been good!

What a joke to say differently!

 

[RickG]

History will clearly show the 97% figure was hook, line, and sinker disinformation.

History is not necessary, what is necessary is the science.

And CO2 should have never been demonized.

No one is demonizing CO2, it just happens that CO2 is the major radiative forcing being observed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.

What you want is one-sided "science".

It's like the law. The law is the law, but how it's applied depends on what lawyer or judge you go to.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You do that, but in the meantime you might want to make the obvious inference.

No need for me to question what God did or didn't do. Jesus referred to it, and was there when it happened, being omnipresent and all. Good enough for me.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Once again, look at the science published in peer review literature, and show where that science is wrong. I am not interested in opinions from blogs and the media, especially when they don't even come from actual scientists, much less climate scientists.

A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists. What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.

 

[The Barbarian]

Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.

That wouldn't be the peer-reviewed literature. For example denier Willy Soon is published widely in the literature. But roughly 3% of papers in climate literature did not agree with the consensus. The guys providing lavish funding for deniers would like you to believe that one can't publish without agreeing with the consensus, but as you see that's wrong:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

What you want is one-sided "science".

 

[USincognito]

Indeed, and through the fields of geophysics and geochemistry we can see what those causes were. For the most part, prior to the mid Cenozoic (Neogene) it had to do with continental configuration and positions, topography, and ocean circulations.


The sun's activity was less in the geologic past not higher. As for CO2 lags temperature increases, no, it does not, though it was thought to have at one time. But now, with improved techniques and technology Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature rise were synchronous, and global warming was preceded by increasing carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation. Here are two studies demonstrating this, one in the Journal Science and one in the Journal Nature.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming | Science

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Oh come now. Why would people believe actual studies when they can cite a denier blog?

 

[USincognito]

Maybe they should look at HOW they study, and what methods they're using. If your instruments and they way you use them are faulty, then expect faulty data:

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming

Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring

The funny thing about Watts' station positioning claim is that regardless of how close to a heat source they are, they wouldn't show a warming trend unless it was actually warming.

 

[USincognito]

Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.

What you want is one-sided "science".

And yet here you are appealing to conspiracy theory.

 

[USincognito]

A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists. What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.

No they aren't. There are a handful of earth scientists who are deniers or contrarians, but the vast majority of them are not even scientists.

 

[USincognito]

It's like the law. The law is the law, but how it's applied depends on what lawyer or judge you go to.

No. Science is empirical. Either the data support the claim or it doesn't.

 

[rjs330]

I suggest citing a peer review paper from the 97% consensus and show where the science is wrong.

The 97% consensus is wrong. And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable. It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.

 

[RickG]

A lot of them are actual scientists, even climate scientists.

With all due respect, that does not address what was quoted. Once again:

"Look at the science published in peer review literature, and show where that science is wrong. I am not interested in opinions from blogs and the media, especially when they don't even come from actual scientists, much less climate scientists."
​

What you mean to say is you're not interested in opinions that don't support yours.

No, what I am not interested in is opinions from non professional sources, nor professionals whose profession is not climatology. My opinions are based on what actual practicing climatologists have published from their research, in the appropriate professional literature. It is also based on my academic background and professional experience which allows me to review that literature from a professional point of view and understanding.

 

[USincognito]

The 97% consensus is wrong. And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable. It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.

Any evidence to support your assertions?

 

[RickG]

The 97% consensus is wrong.

I have already posted links to several published peer review papers which have evaluated the relevant literature showing that the 97% consensus is correct. I have also asked for anyone to point out any information in any of those papers where they can show their findings incorrect.

And peer review has serious problems and is unreliable.

I have seen the article relating to the "medical sciences". I know of none relating to the "earth sciences".

It's actually closer to 65% consensus. Many of the scientists were not happy about their inclusion because they didn't agree with the findings.

Well that's interesting, I wonder which scientists made such a statement? From the (Cook 2013) paper:

"Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team." (bold emphasis, mine)
​

So, it was not only the Cook, et al, team that rated the papers, but the authors themselves were asked about their papers.

 

[Aldebaran]

The funny thing about Watts' station positioning claim is that regardless of how close to a heat source they are, they wouldn't show a warming trend unless it was actually warming.

That made no sense at all. If a statoin is positioned next to a source of artificial heat such as a burn barrel, or next to an air conditioner that blows hot air towards it from the outside, or at an airport where jet exhaust can hit it, then it's not accurately measuring the earth's temperature. Also, putting it on blacktop where the sun's heat is more absorbed and is radiated into the temperature monitoring station doesn't accurately measure the earth's temperature.