Science Denial

[grasping the after wind]

As soon as someone uses the term "denier" I can be assured they have a completely closed mind.

 

[4x4toy]

You do know that there are millions of tons of methane hydrate on the ocean floor waiting to melt? Your attitude is just plain selfish irresponsible.

When God said:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

he didn't mean, "Let them do what they damn well like with it."

Gods weather report with or without man made carbon tax .. Genesis 8:22

 

[4x4toy]

dp

 

[The Barbarian]

Enough to offset the loss by the North Pole?

There is no loss from the North pole. If all the sea ice melted, it wouldn't change sea levels at all. The much greater mass of continental ice will increase sea levels, if it continues to melt at the present rate.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no loss from the North pole.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

It's basic physics, chief.

Fill up a glass with ice cubes, then put water in it right up to the rim and let all the ice melt.

The level of water will actually decrease.

This is because water expands when it freezes.

 

[Steve Petersen]

'And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.'

Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

 

[Radrook]

'And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.'

Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

Which means that out of 1,868 there were 633.66 who said that less than half of global warming is attributable to human activity or that they didn't know. What I'd like to know is what percentage of these said they didn't know.

 

[The Barbarian]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

It's basic physics, chief.

It is. Water expands when it freezes, becoming less dense. The amount floating above the surface of the water is the additional volume. When it melts, it compacts and becomes less dense it loses that additional volume, and the water level remains precisely the same.

Fill up a glass with ice cubes, then put water in it right up to the rim and let all the ice melt.
The level of water will actually decrease.

Nope. Not unless there's measurable evaporation. Otherwise, the level of water won't change at all. Try it and see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise, the level of water won't change at all.

Interesting ... thanks for the info!

 

[RickG]

Ya ... a couple.

First of all, qv the video starting at 02:04.

Her nameplate says her name is Tom Blumenthal!

Deception of camera angle. Notice that directly to the left is her name plate.

Second of all, unless I missed it, she doesn't say one word about why she's leaving the History Channel.

2:44 - 3:04

Thirdly, has anyone addressed the fact that if you fill a glass of ice cubes up with water ... right to the rim, and let it set until all the ice melts, not a drop of water will run over the edge? In fact, the level of water will drop. That's because water expands as it freezes.

That is specific to sea ice, not that of land ice. Nevertheless, what need to be taken into account is thermal expansion. That melted ice, now water, warms and expands (thermal expansion).

 

[RickG]

There is no loss from the North pole. If all the sea ice melted, it wouldn't change sea levels at all. The much greater mass of continental ice will increase sea levels, if it continues to melt at the present rate.

Yes it would due to thermal expansion.

 

[AV1611VET]

That melted ice, now water, warms and expands (thermal expansion).

So the Earth will become one tropical climate in the end?

 

[RickG]

.

 

[The Barbarian]

'And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.'

From your source:
Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight,
Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

So Denying Ted is back at it again? Let's take a look...

NASA GISS global surface temperatures

• 2005 67
• 2006 76
• 2007 84
• 2008 63
• 2009 77
• 2010 91
• 2011 77
• 2012 75
• 2013 80
• 2014 87
• 2015 97
• 2016 122

I'm having a little trouble seeing the "pause" here. If you care, here are the details:
Best-fit values


Slope 3.077 ± 0.9513
Y-intercept 63.00 ± 7.001
X-intercept -20.48
1/Slope 0.3250

95% Confidence Intervals
Slope 0.9574 to 5.196
Y-intercept 47.40 to 78.60
X-intercept -80.35 to -9.321

Goodness of Fit
R square 0.5113
Sy.x 11.38

Is slope significantly non-zero?
F 10.46
DFn,DFd 1,10
P Value 0.0090
Deviation from horizontal? Significant

Data
Number of XY pairs 12
Equation Y = 3.077*X + 63.00

If you like, I can run the data for 19 years or whatever, but it won't look any better for deniers. Would you like me to do it?

That kind of thing is why I'm deeply suspicious of a claim that "scientists said", when there's no link to the paper that supposedly said so. I'm pretty sure I know why those guys decided to not link to the paper.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes it would due to thermal expansion

Assuming that the oceans continue to warm. But that's a different issue. A real one, though. Almost all the ocean rise to date has been due to thermal expansion of ocean waters as they warm up.

 

[The Barbarian]

So the Earth will become one tropical climate in the end?

It will vary, depending on a lot of other local factors. Most likely, the western U.S. will become drier, with croplands becoming pasture in many places, and pasture becoming semiarid, and semiarid becoming desert.

As the snowline gets higher, there will be less snowmelt in the spring, and less irrigation water. On the other hand, there's a possibility where I live will become wetter in the summer, which would be a good thing. The Gulf Coast will continue to become more and more ... interesting, as tropical storms will continue to tend to be stronger.

 

[Michael]

I'm unaware of any "actual" practicing climate scientist that is in denial of climate change, rather just the amount and consequences involved. The vast majority of denial comes from sources completely outside the scientific community and of that most are only following their political party's agenda. And what gets me is that the ones claiming scientists are fudging data are the very people who do it all time, not the actual climate scientists.

I thought that Michelle did a wonderful job explaining the "entertainment"/political aspect of the climate change debate when she talked about here appearance on Fox news. News and entertainment are no longer separate things, and the news has *always* capitalized on, and started "controversy" as a means to improve their income.

As for Thaller's reasons for leaving the History Channel, I am very supportive of her reasons. Several years ago I myself became very discouraged with both the History and Science Channels with some of their programming; i.e., programs like ancient aliens, bigfoot, etc..

I can't argue with her there. It does seem as through the History Channel and the Science Channels are going more toward the fringe for the entertainment value of it (Bigfoot) and they've become disinterested in "hard science". I can totally appreciate her perspective on that issue.

I think the big oil companies are heavily invested in generating "controversy" about climate change, and big money tends to skew the whole debate.

 

[RickG]

'And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.'

Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

The source provided misrepresents the (Cook et al. 2013) paper. Here is what they said:

"In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!"
​

At face value the statement looks legitimate, however, it is ignoring an extremely important factor. So what's the problem? Here's what they are implying:

• In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible
  
• Cook divided the 33% by 34% and — voilà — 97 percent! Thus, Cook is ignoring the other 66% is implied.

Here's the problem. In the first statement they imply that Cook says 97% of the 12,000 abstracts took the position of AGW. Cook et al, did no such thing. Cook et at, took the terms "global climate change" and "global warming" to locate paper that would indicate papers pertaining to those subjects in a scientific search engine. Of those search criteria only 12,000 (actually 11,944) matched the search. Your source did acknowledge that only 33% did match that criteria, but then they follow with the implied "statement 33% by 34% and — voilà — 97 percent!" It is easily overlooked at face value, especially when the source is well know for its AGW denial position and those sourcing it are hearing what they want to hear.

Yes 33 divided by 34 yields a percentile of 97%, and that is correct. Only 33% of the original 12,000 had anything to say about AGW. It would be an enormous error to include that 66% when they not only had absolutely no position on AGW, but that 66% of papers didn't even address the subject. Most published research in climatology has nothing to do with AGW, rather Paleoclimatology (past climates) and related areas.

 

[RickG]

So the Earth will become one tropical climate in the end?

No. Warming is only one aspect of climate change and winters are not going to go away.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The source provided misrepresents the (Cook et al. 2013) paper. Here is what they said:

"In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!"
​

At face value the statement looks legitimate, however, it is ignoring an extremely important factor. So what's the problem? Here's what they are implying:

• In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible
  
• Cook divided the 33% by 34% and — voilà — 97 percent! Thus, Cook is ignoring the other 66% is implied.

Here's the problem. In the first statement they imply that Cook says 97% of the 12,000 abstracts took the position of AGW. Cook et al, did no such thing. Cook et at, took the terms "global climate change" and "global warming" to locate paper that would indicate papers pertaining to those subjects in a scientific search engine. Of those search criteria only 12,000 (actually 11,944) matched the search. Your source did acknowledge that only 33% did match that criteria, but then they follow with the implied "statement 33% by 34% and — voilà — 97 percent!" It is easily overlooked at face value, especially when the source is well know for its AGW denial position and those sourcing it are hearing what they want to hear.

Yes 33 divided by 34 yields a percentile of 97%, and that is correct. Only 33% of the original 12,000 had anything to say about AGW. It would be an enormous error to include that 66% when they not only had absolutely no position on AGW, but that 66% of papers didn't even address the subject. Most published research in climatology has nothing to do with AGW, rather Paleoclimatology (past climates) and related areas.

Appeal to authority by Cook? How many of these papers were by climatologists?