Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[birdog1960]

 

Is the greenhouse effect of CO2 linear or logarithmic?

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

[DC Tom]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

In other words, you're too lazy to be informed, so you'll rely on the opinions of reporters.

[Azalin]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

As far as science goes, climatology is still very much in its infancy. Scientific fact is based in empirical evidence, not hypothesis. In general, the Earth has been experiencing a warming trend since the end of the last ice age, yet humanity only began to industrialize about 100 years ago. To say with any certainty that humanity is or isn't responsible for climate change is simply premature, and if the science wasn't so politicized, we might actually learn the truth of it at some point.

[Gary M]

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

[DC Tom]

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

[birdog1960]

 

Not really.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

yes, really. i said the vast majority and i stand by it. i didn't say 97% although i don't doubt that's far from the truth. the definition of what is agreed upon by the vast majority given by the article matches mine pretty well, i think. so can we agree that the vast majority of scientist involved in the study of this phenomenon agree that climate change is predominantly man made. if we can agree to that then we can discuss the validity of this premise.

 

if not, perhaps we should investigate the question of how many of the 3,5,or even 10% of scientists that are public deniers have a financial dog in the hunt.

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

therefore i assume that you believe that difficulty is based on bias and not lousy science…(although i'm sure in a few cases an editorial board looked at a paper and said "not this moron again. let's read it for laughs…"

Edited January 15, 2015 by birdog1960

[Gary M]

so can we agree that the vast majority of scientist involved in the study of this phenomenon agree that climate change is predominantly man made.

 

 

No, because that is not true.

 

Climate change is and always has been happening.

 

We are not causing it, and as the Forbes article points out the change has only been .8 degrees over the past 150 years, even if we were causing that(which we are not) that is nothing to be alarmed about.

[birdog1960]

 

 

No, because that is not true.

 

Climate change is and always has been happening.

 

We are not causing it, and as the Forbes article points out the change has only been .8 degrees over the past 150 years, even if we were causing that(which we are not) that is nothing to be alarmed about.

do you have a reference that says it's untrue. cuz the one you linked doesn't say that.

[Gary M]

do you have a reference that says it's untrue. cuz the one you linked doesn't say that.

 

Yes it does.

 

"Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."

 

snip

 

"This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” "

[DC Tom]

 

Yes it does.

 

"Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming."

 

snip

 

"This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” "

 

 

But "97%" is settled science, so skepticism isn't allowed.

 

The above is why I'm such a pedantic supercilious anal orifice about precision in the discussion. "97% of scientists" actually turns out to be "97% of research papers, surveyed by one guy, according to his own definition of 'endorse'?" Don't know if it's true or not, as I haven't read Cooks' paper...but it's the lousy sort of approximation that the public portrayal of the science is rife with.

 

Another example: "Carbon dioxide causes global warming." Well, yeah...sort of. In truth the magnitude of the warming it causes directly is relatively moderate; water vapor's a more significant greenhouse gas. But the warming cause by CO2 can potentially increase the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop that warms the planet well beyond what CO2 would do alone. On the other hand, more water vapor means more clouds, means more reflection of radiation, means the cooling effect of a negative feedback loop. So there's a massive secondary effect of CO2 on the atmosphere...but no one can agree on the direction or magnitude of that effect, as it's so complex.

 

Good thing we don't need to research it, since there's a "consensus" and "the science is settled."

[Tiberius]

 

 

But "97%" is settled science, so skepticism isn't allowed.

 

The above is why I'm such a pedantic supercilious anal orifice about precision in the discussion. "97% of scientists" actually turns out to be "97% of research papers, surveyed by one guy, according to his own definition of 'endorse'?" Don't know if it's true or not, as I haven't read Cooks' paper...but it's the lousy sort of approximation that the public portrayal of the science is rife with.

 

Another example: "Carbon dioxide causes global warming." Well, yeah...sort of. In truth the magnitude of the warming it causes directly is relatively moderate; water vapor's a more significant greenhouse gas. But the warming cause by CO2 can potentially increase the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop that warms the planet well beyond what CO2 would do alone. On the other hand, more water vapor means more clouds, means more reflection of radiation, means the cooling effect of a negative feedback loop. So there's a massive secondary effect of CO2 on the atmosphere...but no one can agree on the direction or magnitude of that effect, as it's so complex.

 

Good thing we don't need to research it, since there's a "consensus" and "the science is settled."

No, you are being an anal orifice. I'm pretty sure you didn't apply this much scrutiny to the Saddam had WMD

[DC Tom]

No, you are being an anal orifice. I'm pretty sure you didn't apply this much scrutiny to the Saddam had WMD

 

Yeah, actually I did, you idiot. And if you'll recall, I was against invading Iraq.

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

[meazza]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

Could've fooled me.

[DC Tom]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

[birdog1960]

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

oops, there it is…sour grapes. not in with the cool kids, huh tom?

[DC Tom]

oops, there it is…sour grapes. not in with the cool kids, huh tom?

 

Your signature is extremely ironic.

[Tiberius]

Plus, the sampling is biased by the relative difficulty of getting a paper published that presents evidence against AGW.

 

Plus...it doesn't matter. Consensus is irrelevant. All the consensus in the world won't stand against one solid, provable fact.

Plus, any idiot can yammering on about what isn't so, but when the guys that do science mostly agree most reasonable people are going to listen. Of course 100% of institutions won't agree, the oil companies will buy up a few scientists like the tobacco companies did. Heck, I proved that one of the scientists B-Man was linking to had in fact been a smoking-cancer denier.

 

Fact is, most of those denying climate change are doing it for political/lobbying/industry interest reasons and the conspiracy charges against the scientists that believe is stupid.

[Azalin]

 

They're measuring a delta of hundredths of a degree Centigrade against an estimated average two orders of magnitude less precise.

 

I called "bull ****" on that sort of nonsense when it was my own research.

What I'd like to know is how NASA and NOAA, founded in 1958 and 1970 respectively, can cite with any accuracy the specific global climate conditions as far back as 1880, as referenced in Greg's linked article. That's one of the main reasons for skepticism on my part - hypothetical points of reference for their measurements. Another is, as I have already alluded to, the fact that Earth has experienced a number of ice ages, each with a significant warming period between them, and it all happened without humanity dumping carbon dioxide into the air. How do we know that the cycle of ice ages has stopped? It's only been somewhere between 11 & 12 thousand years since the last one, and they are estimated to have begun as long as 2 1/2 million years ago. Why do people automatically assume that another one isn't coming in the future - that any warming trend occurring now isn't just another in a series of climatic cycles?

[Gary M]

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h

 

This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet

 

No ****, since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

 

Still no proof it's man made or that carbon credits will do anything more than pay Al Gores outrageous electric bills.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888