Global Warming

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you for your interest. Here's links to 4 papers published in peer review journals showing the 97% consensus.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

My point exactly-they don't agree on what the data says.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is currently at its lowest recorded point.
Sea Ice Index

There's a difference between Antarctica and the Arctic...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I prefer looking at the actual science rather than media opinion. Here's a link to a paper NASA (Hansen, Makiko, 2011) on Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change, where Milankovitch Cycles are discussed in detail. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

And here's another paper discussing Milankovitch Cycles. Of particulate note in it, the peer review article published in the journal Science, states that the current cycle begin its cooling cycle 6,000 years ago which will continue for the next 23,000 years. Of course it too describes why this cycle will not cool due to anthropogenic intervention. Even during the warm periods of the cycle CO2 was 30 to 40 percent less than it is now. Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations | Science

That would be fine, if it was the media giving the opinion. Bill Nye is a AGW agree-er, one whom many people listen to. And yet, he cannot tell us what the climate would have been like without human intervention.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Exactly. We can watch annual lake varves and annual ice layers being produced right now. That's how we know.

What about the unknown? Or do you think we know everything there is to know?

Here is an example of how a flood would interrupt lake varves. The fine grained sediments with alternating light and dark layers are lake varves. The coarse grained sediments above and below the varves are flood deposits. Notice the difference?

Annual lake varves and flood deposits are really easy to tell apart.



Are we talking about Noah's flood or not?

Yep. We believe that all mankind stems from Noah.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about the unknown? Or do you think we know everything there is to know?

What about the known?

Yep. We believe that all mankind stems from Noah.

Based on what science?

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be fine, if it was the media giving the opinion. Bill Nye is a AGW agree-er, one whom many people listen to. And yet, he cannot tell us what the climate would have been like without human intervention.

Scientists can tell us what the climate would be like without human intervention, as has been shown to you multiple times now.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Please explain how increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not having an effect on global temperatures.



By what measure?

What about dams? Nuclear power?

What about them? They don't produce a significant amount of energy, mostly because we don't have enough of them.

Why can't humans do what nature did in the past?



You claimed that humans have no lasting impact on the environment. I cited extinct species as an example of humans having a permanent impact on ecosystems.

Extinctions are mostly natural. Due to climate change, sometimes.

You are projecting.

No, I'm a realist.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What about the known?



Based on what science?

I don't give much credence to science, except where it's authoritative.

Actually, edit that. Science, I give credence to. Scientists opinions, which are not infallible, I do not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Scientists can tell us what the climate would be like without human intervention, as has been shown to you multiple times now.

Apparently not. When asked to quantify it, they hem and haw.

 

[RickG]

My point exactly-they don't agree on what the data says.

I am curious as to how that view was obtained from the links I provided. Let's look at the first link I provided, (Cook, et al. 2013). The link I provided sources the full paper which anyone can read. Here's the abstract:

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
​

The bold emphasis in the abstract is mine as I wish to make specific points. I think there might be a misunderstanding as to what the percentages represent. Not all climate research is specific to AGW, Climatology covers a very wide range of topics. Of those nearly 12,000 published peer reviewed papers 32.6 percent were specific to research concerning AGW. Those are the relevant papers and they were 32.6% of all climate research over a 20 year period. Of those specifically relevant papers, 97.1 percent endorsed AGW. Next, a second study was performed, contacting the authors of those papers to verify that the Cook, et al interpretation of the study was correct. Of that, the authors themselves stated yes they agree. And not only that, the percentage increased to 97.2 percent.

Questions?

​

 

[RickG]

There's a difference between Antarctica and the Arctic...

I am quite aware of that. Be sure to click on the Antarctic tab at the link? And especially note the graph in the lower right hand corner.

 

[RickG]

That would be fine, if it was the media giving the opinion. Bill Nye is a AGW agree-er, one whom many people listen to. And yet, he cannot tell us what the climate would have been like without human intervention.

I disagree, the media is not the place to obtain actual scientific information regardless of ones position, especially when it depends upon which media source one obtains, conservative or liberal. The best source is the original research sources, the science itself, that is why I provide links only to research papers or scientific organizations doing actual research. May I ask, of the sources you have reviewed, how many were written by actual practicing climate scientists?

 

[Loudmouth]

What about them? They don't produce a significant amount of energy, mostly because we don't have enough of them.

What are you basing this on?

Extinctions are mostly natural. Due to climate change, sometimes.

That doesn't change the fact that the dodo and passenger pigeon went extinct due to humans. The bison almost went extinct because of humans, going from millions to almost 1,000 individuals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently not. When asked to quantify it, they hem and haw.

That is something you are making up.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't give much credence to science, except where it's authoritative.

Actually, edit that. Science, I give credence to. Scientists opinions, which are not infallible, I do not.

It is that type of attitude that leads to people who believe in global flood myths but reject well supported science like global warming.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am curious as to how that view was obtained from the links I provided. Let's look at the first link I provided, (Cook, et al. 2013). The link I provided sources the full paper which anyone can read. Here's the abstract:

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
​

The bold emphasis in the abstract is mine as I wish to make specific points. I think there might be a misunderstanding as to what the percentages represent. Not all climate research is specific to AGW, Climatology covers a very wide range of topics. Of those nearly 12,000 published peer reviewed papers 32.6 percent were specific to research concerning AGW. Those are the relevant papers and they were 32.6% of all climate research over a 20 year period. Of those specifically relevant papers, 97.1 percent endorsed AGW. Next, a second study was performed, contacting the authors of those papers to verify that the Cook, et al interpretation of the study was correct. Of that, the authors themselves stated yes they agree. And not only that, the percentage increased to 97.2 percent.

Questions?

​

See? That's how data gets misrepresented. The bolded expresses your agenda. The below, which is directly copied and pasted, does not:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

So the way it reads to me, 32.6% express AGW. 66.4% do not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I disagree, the media is not the place to obtain actual scientific information regardless of ones position, especially when it depends upon which media source one obtains, conservative or liberal. The best source is the original research sources, the science itself, that is why I provide links only to research papers or scientific organizations doing actual research. May I ask, of the sources you have reviewed, how many were written by actual practicing climate scientists?

See, that's just it. I don't worry about it. I have better things to do than wring my hands. I work. I have a family. I study what's important-my faith. My faith teaches me not to over-consume, and I don't. I believe in an all-powerful God who's not going to let anyone destroy His creation.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What are you basing this on?

The lack of power plants running producing power from water or nuclear fusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the dodo and passenger pigeon went extinct due to humans. The bison almost went extinct because of humans, going from millions to almost 1,000 individuals.

But it wasn't from Global Warming, now was it? Same with the bison.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is something you are making up.

No, it isn't.

Could you get back to the topic? Actually, I think Dr. Bubbalove gave the conclusion of the thread, so I'm pretty much done here.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is that type of attitude that leads to people who believe in global flood myths but reject well supported science like global warming.

If I didn't believe in global warming, you might have a point, but I do believe in global warming, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, which you either fail to read or ignore. This makes me think that, when you read, you gloss over what you disagree with and therefore, your interpretations are incorrect.
I believe in the Creation story in Genesis, AND I agree that evolution in some form happened. I believe that the earth warms and cools globally, and I don't think mankind is the primary cause of it. You, on the other hand, disbelieve an event that is chronicled in many cultures, while believing in one which is strictly a matter of opinion-two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions.