Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I take it you people must be globalists, anti-conservative, perhaps pro-communist, lets reduce the economy to zero.

The description you're flailing for is 'rational empiricists'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite right - you should always look behind the headlines to see what the consensus of published peer-reviewed research is telling you.

Judging by the published research, the media don't seem to be exaggerating the urgency of the problem.

I would not say that exaggeration does not exist. I would agree that the mainstream press is for once fairly accurate when it comes to their science reporting. Part of the problem with Al Gore's message is that he made it too dire and too immediate and that could not be observed. His predictions were essentially correct, he was just off on the timescale. We are seeing the beginning of mass extinctions predicted by AGW. The first step is of course a loss in population of some species or a loss of habitat that will end up in a loss of population. Of course they still get the details wrong, such as why low lying island nations will suffer hugely, but over all I must give them credit.

 

[lordjeff]

I would not say that exaggeration does not exist. I would agree that the mainstream press is for once fairly accurate when it comes to their science reporting. Part of the problem with Al Gore's message is that he made it too dire and too immediate and that could not be observed. His predictions were essentially correct, he was just off on the timescale. We are seeing the beginning of mass extinctions predicted by AGW. The first step is of course a loss in population of some species or a loss of habitat that will end up in a loss of population. a Of course they still get the details wrong, such as why low lying island nations will suffer hugely, but over all I must give them credit.

The mainstream press accurate on science reporting-surely you're joking Dr. Feyman. Just recently-the journalist who in USA today said that UV rays do not kill germs. Wrong. Why do you think we get skin cancer-b/c UV rays can disrupt DNA. As stated before UV light is used in wastewater treatment to kill germs of the flushed water. Next point-wildfires in Australia-oh it must be that co2. Wrong again. Further investigation pointed to arson. CO2 is fact used in some fire extinguishers to quench burning flames. Mr. Gore was not right on anything-even his photos of the polar bears. There are actually 23,000-26,000 out there.

 

[lordjeff]

The peer research was phony. Most scientists can't agree on a single cause. I'll provide 1 example of how the phony mishandled survey took place which resulted in a very erroneous report of a 97% consensus. Indeed a global survey was sent out to 10k scientists with only 2 Y/N questions on it. Given that construction-most did not even bother to send it back. 3000 sent it back. A grad student working on a paper then reduced the lot to 79 responses who indicated an anthropogenic forcing & of the 79, 75 responded in the affirmative that it was all anthropogenic, hence giving 97%. If there weren't an agenda by that college, that thesis would have failed the class.

 

[Ophiolite]

The peer research was phony. Most scientists can't agree on a single cause. I'll provide 1 example of how the phony mishandled survey took place which resulted in a very erroneous report of a 97% consensus. Indeed a global survey was sent out to 10k scientists with only 2 Y/N questions on it. Given that construction-most did not even bother to send it back. 3000 sent it back. A grad student working on a paper then reduced the lot to 79 responses who indicated an anthropogenic forcing & of the 79, 75 responded in the affirmative that it was all anthropogenic, hence giving 97%. If there weren't an agenda by that college, that thesis would have failed the class.

Your good at handing out assertions, notably poor at offering support for them. May we expect a change shortly?

 

[lordjeff]

You got a pc you can look up the 97% yourself. Note IPCC has 32 models in its toolbox. 31 of them don't work-they won't tell you that. The reason why the cry alarmism is that one thing all colleges cry for is money. If you don't exaggerate that the planet is doomed, no money will flow. So if the data reported say a .47 degree warming, people would not get alarmed. It's not headline material so no money will flow. The problem with all these renewables is that they want the govt to subsidize them because they can't make it on their own.

 

[lordjeff]

Also note the IPCC has no material on the Sun & its properties in their bag of garbage. Gee who would have thought that the Sun has something to do with climate.

 

[lordjeff]

 

[lordjeff]

The above graphs from NOAA indicate the infamous hockey stick data vs what the real measurements were. NOAA reported the upswing as noted in the hockey stick. The actual data is reported in the blue line which lacks a hockey stick. Government agencies don't lie? If people are naive to believe that govt does not have an agenda then they probably can't graduate kindergarten. Be it the atomic bomb era, the military-industrial complex mentality, the desire to do both Afghanistan & Iraq. Govt is about power & always has an agenda. In the case of climate, it is to drive a method of income distribution. It has nothing to do with cleaning up air pollutants. Few of these politicians have any idea what the true cost would be in having people resort to a purely electrical supply for their heating & cooling needs in their home. They just chatter away about saving the earth but I guess few of them have experienced the high cost of electricity if say forcing everyone to abandon their oil furnace in exchange for electric heat. And then given the scenarios when the grid is under stress, there would be higher costs plus brownouts. Just think back to the Enron days when the manipulated the grid in CAL, forcing the prices up on everybody. Imagine the people in International Falls, MN where winters are long & frigid. Can one imagine if oil furnaces were banished & people were told to use solar or electric heat? I'd see a lot of people getting hypothermic because they would not be able to pay the cost of electric heat. In the rust belt states, winters are harsh & the general pattern in the north is that electricity is expensive as it is. Now go with electric heat, which is enormously expensive, & watch how quickly they would want their oil furnace back.

 

[Ophiolite]

Also note the IPCC has no material on the Sun & its properties in their bag of garbage.

Incorrect. For example:
"Solar forcing went from a relative maximum in 2000 to a relative minimum in 2009, with a peak-to-peak difference of around 0.15 W m–2 and a linear trend over 1998–2011 of around –0.10 W m–2 per decade."
Paragraph 3, Page 62, Technical Summary, Working Group 1, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

Govt is about power & always has an agenda.

It is nice to see you avoided that pratfall, I mean pitfall.

 

[lordjeff]

No what I mean is the IPCC did not discuss Milankovitch cycles or the Maunder cycles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No what I mean is the IPCC did not discuss Milankovitch cycles or the Maunder cycles.

Why would they?

When you ask questions like this you tell us that you do not understand the problem. You also refute a claim of having an MS in Earth sciences.

The peer research was phony. Most scientists can't agree on a single cause. I'll provide 1 example of how the phony mishandled survey took place which resulted in a very erroneous report of a 97% consensus. Indeed a global survey was sent out to 10k scientists with only 2 Y/N questions on it. Given that construction-most did not even bother to send it back. 3000 sent it back. A grad student working on a paper then reduced the lot to 79 responses who indicated an anthropogenic forcing & of the 79, 75 responded in the affirmative that it was all anthropogenic, hence giving 97%. If there weren't an agenda by that college, that thesis would have failed the class.

You need to find a valid source to claim there was not a 97% consensus. Just for your information that degree of agreement was not found in only one source. But you made your claim first so please find a reliable source that supports you. If you can do that, or if you admit your failure then I will support my claim.

 

[lordjeff]

And for your info, there is more than 1 report on the dispute of it. What are some kind of troll or something or you just like goading people. I don't post blogs for the sake of faking people. I'm an educated person. Can't you look it up yourself.
edia Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)

 

[lordjeff]

Doran & Zimmerman
Began with a pool of 10,257 earth scientists (geologists, geophysicists, etc.)  Of those 3,146 responded  Of these, 79 “self-selected” scientists said they were publishing on climate  Fundamentally respondents answered 2 opinion questions: ▪ When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? ▪ Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  What’s missing? Empirical parameters: Science refers to specific timeframes, degrees of change, specific type of human activity or emissions and clear definitions. "Significant" is subjective.
Scientific Debate? Or Consensus
Conclusion: “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global

This is one of the faulty studies on the 97%. There are others but this one clearly illustrates the lack of good scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And for your info, there is more than 1 report on the dispute of it. What are some kind of troll or something or you just like goading people. I don't post blogs for the sake of faking people. I'm an educated person. Can't you look it up yourself.
edia Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)

So no valid sources.

Keep trying.

 

[lordjeff]

Did you graduate from a real school or are you sociopathic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you graduate from a real school or are you sociopathic?

Oh my. Projection.

You failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, if you found a valid source I would refute your claim. And even though you failed I will still do so. I am more than generous. You thought that there was only one study that came up with the 97% figure. That is because you rely on dishonest sources. That figure has been confirmed multiple times:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

"
References

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   
   Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
   
   J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   
   Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
   
   W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
   
   P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
   
   N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618."

Isn't it nice how one reliable source beats the heck out of a bunch of bogus sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to emphasize this one point. More than one study that passed peer review found that papers that affixed the cause to AGW to humans was 97.1%. Among scientists that expressed an opinion on AGW in their abstracts the percentage was even higher:

"Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”"

If anything the 97.1% figure appears to be a low figure.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm using my science background that says the properties of the Sun are what drives the climate coupled with the unique properties of the earth. CO2 just does not comprise enough of the atmosphere to drive a climate cycle.

Does the Sun provide the energy for the climate (and weather)? Of course it does.

It's not the existence of climate, but rather the change in climate that we're concerned about. If the climate was stationary, then our economic systems would be able to adapt to the usual patterns of weather. (Which crops are planted where and when, how much flow their is in the rivers, how much snow falls each winter.)

The issue is *change* in climate and the impact on our way of life. For the Sun to be the driver of that climate change it must be changing. The Sun is not changing in any way that drives longer term (decade-long) trends in climate. We know that be cause we've been monitoring the Sun's output directly for a long time.

What has changed is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that change is directly connected to human burning of fossil fuels.