Antarctica Conumdrum

[MongGrel]

Dead birds aren't a negative externality I guess.

http://lifehacker.com/5911467/how-to-stop-birds-from-flying-into-your-windows

 

[Paratus]

True Democrats view, always doom and gloom lol

A quick set of questions for you: (stolen from the afore mentioned Phil Pliat)

If global warming is a hoax ...

… then why was this September globally the hottest September on record by a substantial margin?

… then why were seven of the months in 2015 (so far!) the hottest of those months on record (February the hottest February on record, and so on)?

… then why is 2015 on track to be by far the hottest year on record?

… then why was the last warmest year on record just last year?

… then why are the 10 hottest years all since 1998?

… then why did summertime Arctic ice thin by more than 80 percent from 1975 to 2012?

… then why is Arctic sea ice volume dropping so fast it’s called a “death spiral”?

… then why is the percentage of older ice in the Arctic dropping?

… then why are Earth’s sea levels rising by more than 3 millimeters per year?

… then why are the vast majority of glaciers across the planet melting?

… then why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s real?

… then why don’t climate change deniers publish papers?

… then why do global warming deniers keep using long-falsified claims?

… then why has the fossil fuel industry dumped more than $36 million (so far!) into the 2016 elections, with a staggering 93 percent of it going to Republicans?

Typical Republican view: head in the sand. 😉

 

[stormkroe]

@Paratus
You'll find that many people shun any admission of man's effects on the climate for no other reason than the lies and over exaggeration of people like Al Gore. Also, the statements (fact or not) like how this was the hottest February on record, etc, will be met with anger too because of the vitriol directed at 'deniers' who point out short time periods that are abnormally cold. The 'pissing match' attitude of both sides will once again obscure the closer truth. The reason why I tagged you is because you seem to have the most robust understanding of the issue here, and I trust you to answer my question. What do you think of the horrible dishonesty with the '97% consensus' statement? I see that you listed it, so I assume that you haven't read about the questionable methodology used to come up with that number. If you don't mind, take a look http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1
There are many stories about this, I'm not familiar with this source so if it's a biased page you can easily get another.
FWIW, I:
Am unconvinced that man is a big contributor to global warming
Am COMPLETELY convinced that man is destroying ecosystems through pollution
Am spending considerable capitol in advancing alternative energy solutions
Thanks

 

[glenn1]

A quick set of questions for you: (stolen from the afore mentioned Phil Pliat)

If global warming is a hoax ...

… then why was this September globally the hottest September on record by a substantial margin?

… then why were seven of the months in 2015 (so far!) the hottest of those months on record (February the hottest February on record, and so on)?

… then why is 2015 on track to be by far the hottest year on record?

… then why was the last warmest year on record just last year?

… then why are the 10 hottest years all since 1998?

… then why did summertime Arctic ice thin by more than 80 percent from 1975 to 2012?

… then why is Arctic sea ice volume dropping so fast it’s called a “death spiral”?

… then why is the percentage of older ice in the Arctic dropping?

… then why are Earth’s sea levels rising by more than 3 millimeters per year?

… then why are the vast majority of glaciers across the planet melting?

… then why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s real?

… then why don’t climate change deniers publish papers?

… then why do global warming deniers keep using long-falsified claims?

… then why has the fossil fuel industry dumped more than $36 million (so far!) into the 2016 elections, with a staggering 93 percent of it going to Republicans?

Typical Republican view: head in the sand. 😉

I only need one question of you - if you're right why do voters repeatedly and vehemently reject your proposals? You've been spanked mightily in elections and the few agreements you've obtained have all been rolled back. Why do you think that is, are you like Spinal Tap and your appeal is simply becoming more selective? Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of this for decades at a time and standing in the way of the free market addressing the problem without you, and mostly because you've not been allowed to interfere as you'd wish to?

 

[Paratus]

More wisdom


+1 emphasis added above. Good insight. There is an alternative however; while we spin our wheels or lack of same, we allow the earth time to compensate; trouble is it may take a millennia or more during which time we will still get warmer.

Isn't any form of decadal modeling climate changes hindcasting flawed; unless it holds true for say any decade in the last 200 years?

It is a long read; spent over 6 hours perusing it. It is a far better source than most but the sections were written by different people and some do conflict.

Below are a few random challengeable parts I found and will contact ACS about.

Using the last 11,700 years is a flawed premise unless the fact that similar increases in CO2 and CH4, have occurred during last 2,5 million years also tied to the ending of a inter-Pleistocene glacial periods are somehow discounted; otherwise it is flawed scientific method. Flawed method = find the facts that support and ignore the others; proper method = find the facts, address similar facts which validate other conclusions and then draw a conclusion based on the uniqueness or your premises.

Since much of the rest of the Climate Toolbox painstakingly identifies both positive and negative forcing, talks of how balance is achieved and is good methodology; the validity of this graph is questionable; many other parts of the Toolbox are not so easily invalided. You know what they say about Ass-u-me,
any one who believes greenhouse gases are "...the only external forcing on the climate system" is ignorant of numerous other climate change mechanisms.

Why are they not relevant? Not relevant because author (s) were lazy, not relevant because author(s) failed to follow proper methodology and had a conclusion before the author analyzed the premises or not relevant because they might introduce other unstudied climate mechanisms that question the conclusion. This is like saying it is not relevant that the oceans are rising because one (OPs) decadal study found in one area of this world evidence suggest to the contrary for an geologically instance of time.

These slower processes appear to be more negative forcing as levels approach maximum for this current chaotic state and more positive forcing when levels approach minimum.
The emphasized part above is just a falsehood; levels were a tad bit higher 150,000 (Age of Homo sapiens). 300.000. 450,000, ... age of other Homo species) Probably just an exaggeration because if they said 100,000 years, which is a valid statement, more would question if man alone was causal.

The ACS Climate Toolbox fails to adequately address the role of marine biological chemistry which impounds both CO2 and CH4 but not at a decadal, even millennial timeframe. If fails to address a possible correlation between increased temperature and increased volcanism; perhaps we help open the mantle with increased pressure (if volume remains constant and temperature increases) How much is attributable to atmospheric pressure, oceanic pressure (Higher the ocean more pressure at the bottom) or happenstance is not clear. Given the shortcomings it is still a refreshing scientific look at climate change.

I'd take issue with insinuating they were either being lazy or being deceitful. They do a pretty good job of explaining their assumptions in terms of calculating the values they are looking for and for their intended audience.

You have to remember that while this was written for technical people like engineers to do climate calculations it doesn't go as in depth as the IPCC and all its referenced literature does. It maybe that some of your questions can be answered there.

NASA also has a climate change explanation site that's similar to the ACS toolkit but it's written for a less technical audience.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[MongGrel]

I only need one question of you - if you're right why do voters repeatedly and vehemently reject your proposals? You've been spanked mightily in elections and the few agreements you've obtained have all been rolled back. Why do you think that is, are you like Spinal Tap and your appeal is simply becoming more selective? Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of this for decades at a time and standing in the way of the free market addressing the problem without you, and mostly because you've not been allowed to interfere as you'd wish to?

My one question of you is how you ever were awarded Elite status.

It certainly isn't from post quality from most things I've ever read.

 

[fskimospy]

I only need one question of you - if you're right why do voters repeatedly and vehemently reject your proposals? You've been spanked mightily in elections and the few agreements you've obtained have all been rolled back. Why do you think that is, are you like Spinal Tap and your appeal is simply becoming more selective? Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of this for decades at a time and standing in the way of the free market addressing the problem without you, and mostly because you've not been allowed to interfere as you'd wish to?

Yeah, the free market was just about to address climate change annnnnny minute now.

Lol.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, the free market was just about to address climate change annnnnny minute now.

Lol.

Oh yeah, it must have been all those carbon taxes you passed that have lowered the price of PV panels. Or is Swanson's Law a direct result of all the carbon emissions from flying people to climate change summits in Qatar, Durban, Copenhagen, Bali, Vienna....

 

[MongGrel]

Hey, emissions just from building and shipping a Prius are a lot higher than anything they will ever save climate related.

What else is new.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yeah, it must have been all those carbon taxes you passed that have lowered the price of PV panels. Or is Swanson's Law a direct result of all the carbon emissions from flying people to climate change summits in Qatar, Durban, Copenhagen, Bali, Vienna....

You realize that the federal government has invested billions of dollars in solar research and production, right? Gee, I wonder if that could have contributed to the fall in PV prices.

Nah. 🙂

 

[Paratus]

@Paratus
You'll find that many people shun any admission of man's effects on the climate for no other reason than the lies and over exaggeration of people like Al Gore. Also, the statements (fact or not) like how this was the hottest February on record, etc, will be met with anger too because of the vitriol directed at 'deniers' who point out short time periods that are abnormally cold. The 'pissing match' attitude of both sides will once again obscure the closer truth. The reason why I tagged you is because you seem to have the most robust understanding of the issue here, and I trust you to answer my question. What do you think of the horrible dishonesty with the '97% consensus' statement? I see that you listed it, so I assume that you haven't read about the questionable methodology used to come up with that number. If you don't mind, take a look http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1
There are many stories about this, I'm not familiar with this source so if it's a biased page you can easily get another.
FWIW, I:
Am unconvinced that man is a big contributor to global warming
Am COMPLETELY convinced that man is destroying ecosystems through pollution
Am spending considerable capitol in advancing alternative energy solutions
Thanks

I took a look at the article you linked and I was tangentially aware of the some of the criticism of that study before reading it.

First off outside of that study every credible scientific organization recognizes MMGW, including these:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

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 very 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.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

2nd after reading your link I agree that some authors feel they were miscategorized. That being said the study looked at 1000'sof papers if I recall. I'm not surprised a few were. However from the article even the authors who disagreed with the IPCC seemed only to have issue with the magnitude of our contribution not that humans don't contribute.

If the author at your link had randomly called authors of the papers cited in the 97% study and they had all been miscategorized then I might agree there were shenanigans. But he didn't. Which leads me to my other point.

Popular Technology is not a reputable site. We had the owner posting here a year or two ago trying drum up page hits. He's got articles on how influential his site is, a ton of articles on climate change skepticism and at least one on how marijuana causes low IQ and psychosis. It seems likely he talked only to the authors he knew were linked to contrarian view points.

I'm comfortable with the consensus on climate change because before I had actually read the IPCC I asked myself how I would go about performing a climate analysis. I found the data I thought I would need and drew my own conclusion which ended up basically matching the consensus opinion.

Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[stormkroe]

I took a look at the article you linked and I was tangentially aware of the some of the criticism of that study before reading it.

First off outside of that study every credible scientific organization recognizes MMGW, including these:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


2nd after reading your link I agree that some authors feel they were miscategorized. That being said the study looked at 1000'sof papers if I recall. I'm not surprised a few were. However from the article even the authors who disagreed with the IPCC seemed only to have issue with the magnitude of our contribution not that humans don't contribute.

If the author at your link had randomly called authors of the papers cited in the 97% study and they had all been miscategorized then I might agree there were shenanigans. But he didn't. Which leads me to my other point.

Popular Technology is not a reputable site. We had the owner posting here a year or two ago trying drum up page hits. He's got articles on how influential his site is, a ton of articles on climate change skepticism and at least one on how marijuana causes low IQ and psychosis. It seems likely he talked only to the authors he knew were linked to contrarian view points.

I'm comfortable with the consensus on climate change because before I had actually read the IPCC I asked myself how I would go about performing a climate analysis. I found the data I thought I would need and drew my own conclusion which ended up basically matching the consensus opinion.

Anyway that's my two cents.

Thanks. And thank you for recognizing that the problem with the citation was one of degrees, not binary. Sadly, I predict that strawman will come to life in this thread, despite evidence to the contrary in this thread.
I don't want to out words in your mouth, but if I understand you correctly, you agree that stating '9X% agree that man is contributing to warming' is correct, but that '9X% agree that man is the majority (> 50%) cause if warming' is a misrepresentation of the paper, not to mention of the aforementioned writers who have come forward to clear up particular contradictions. I think clearing that up would go a long way to fostering grown-up discussion.

 

[Paratus]

I only need one question of you - if you're right why do voters repeatedly and vehemently reject your proposals? You've been spanked mightily in elections and the few agreements you've obtained have all been rolled back. Why do you think that is, are you like Spinal Tap and your appeal is simply becoming more selective? Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of this for decades at a time and standing in the way of the free market addressing the problem without you, and mostly because you've not been allowed to interfere as you'd wish to?

I count about 3 questions there glenn1.

Currently most voters don't vote single issue climate change like they do abortion. The only way to get the voters to consider it an issue is make the facts and options known. So the only way I'm on the wrong side of themis argument is if I start lying about the facts. 😉

 

[Paratus]

Thanks. And thank you for recognizing that the problem with the citation was one of degrees, not binary. Sadly, I predict that strawman will come to life in this thread, despite evidence to the contrary in this thread.
I don't want to out words in your mouth, but if I understand you correctly, you agree that stating '9X% agree that man is contributing to warming' is correct, but that '9X% agree that man is the majority (> 50%) cause if warming' is a misrepresentation of the paper, not to mention of the aforementioned writers who have come forward to clear up particular contradictions. I think clearing that up would go a long way to fostering grown-up discussion.

No problem.

If your really trying to pin me down I guess the following sums up my thoughts on the matter.

• For practicing climate scientists greater than %90 agree with the consensus.
• An even greater number agree man is at least contributing to warming
• That some authors studies were mischaracterized but not really enough to significantly change the percentages.

 

[stormkroe]

No problem.

If your really trying to pin me down I guess the following sums up my thoughts on the matter.

• For practicing climate scientists greater than %90 agree with the consensus.
• An even greater number agree man is at least contributing to warming
• That some authors studies were mischaracterized but not really enough to significantly change the percentages.

Haha, I definitely don't want to seem like I'm backing you into a corner. I also don't want to appear to be hanging on that one op ed. I was originally going to post one of the forbes articles on the issue, but I remember forbes being ridiculed here and wanted to avoid that step. What I found interesting in one of the investigations, is that out of all the several thousand pages less than 2% actually supported man made (greater than 50% contribution) warming, and that the higher number (7X%-9X%) was only in support of man contributing in general to warming. The volatile nature of this issue makes this a very important distinction.
I'm currently unaware of a study of the study however, so the cycle could very well keep spinning.

 

[K7SN]

I'm sorry I can't determine if your tongue was in your cheek or not; if this was, forget my response.

I'd take issue with insinuating they were either being lazy or being deceitful. They do a pretty good job of explaining their assumptions in terms of calculating the values they are looking for and for their intended audience.

They did but serious science cannot just say "We didn't consider this important when it is important; when it has happened before man was a factor anymore than a wildebeest intakes oxygen and expels carbon dioxide. The elephant in the corner is important and needs to be addressed before it can be dismissed.

When I questioned how they could wave a magic hand and say this is not relevant I really think they were saying we need to condense loads of work and so we will dismiss. Briefly isn't brevity; too brief can be dangerous if your intended audience are your peers. I read the same articles the atmospheric physicists do; am looking for a way to quantify triggering mechanisms and realize only by identifying as many non man induced as climate change mechanisms as possible; if only because any such missed natural mechanisms very much will invalid research in the deniers who lurk among those peer reviewing.

As for what I wrote that you take umbrage be fair; I gave three possibilities; example the sky is plaid; striped or a hue of colors influenced by amount of visible light passing through the atmosphere so it approaches black at night and sky blue at noon when clouds or a roof don't impede the view. I really didn't think the authors were plaid (lazy), striped (deceitful) or completely though in their methodology; my tongue was in my cheek when I said the might introduce understudied climate mechanisms that question their conclusion because it is my pet peeve.

They do however appear lazy and deceitful when a scientific programmer (Not a climatologist) like myself can easily fault their graph by simply saying, it happen 30,000 years ago, 60,000 etc. in a series of advances and withdrawals of ice over land (no major influence by man). I can cite 150,000 years ago and 300,000 years ago methane and CO2 levels were greater than now and each time the earth began a long steady decline to a mile of ice laid over Wisconsin. and man wasn't a player so obviously all should dismiss that graph as junk science and perhaps all current research in global climate change; beware their be dragons beyond this place, which was written on maps of the unknown or explored territory. I want to expose the supposed dragons as areas that nee to be explored.

Your wrote They do a pretty good job of explaining their assumptions in terms of calculating the values they are looking for and for their intended audience. I feel good science should be able to explain why.

Seriously you have to establish the uniqueness of the premises used for drawing a conclusion; otherwise (tongue goes back in my cheek) we'll have the decline in pirates being the cause of global climate change.

Again, I read everything I could search at that ACS site you recommended looking for in climate change and found what I perceived as few flaws; they are the same things that cause grief to those scientists I program for. In case you don't remember I know the math; I don't know all the answers but I do know that the complexity of climate change is greater than current research addresses.

I just wished to point out that not everything on those pages reflects good science. That said, what they did cover, they did well but they say both sides of water vapor in the air going well into the negative forcing as well as the positive forcing; then you go to a page and they start 11.700 years ago and have a trending line of global warming attributed to greenhouse gas alone.

You wrote "remember that while this was written for technical people like engineers to do climate calculations..." (I resemble them).

You wrote "it doesn't go as in depth as the IPCC and all its referenced literature does..." (The physicists I program for go there).

NASA also has a climate change explanation site that's similar to the ACS toolkit but it's written for a less technical audience.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

A good place for others on this thread to go; too High School for my reading. This is P&N - I get trolled because I can't tell always tell when some are being serious or facetious.

 

[woolfe9998]

I only need one question of you - if you're right why do voters repeatedly and vehemently reject your proposals? You've been spanked mightily in elections and the few agreements you've obtained have all been rolled back. Why do you think that is, are you like Spinal Tap and your appeal is simply becoming more selective? Don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of this for decades at a time and standing in the way of the free market addressing the problem without you, and mostly because you've not been allowed to interfere as you'd wish to?

What gets voted up or down politically has zero to do with what is scientifically accurate.

By the way, do you notice that in your link discussing Australia's repeal of the carbon tax that it is being replaced by a plan to use tax payer money to pay polluters to stop polluting? Not exactly the "free market" approach you advocate. The difference is they all acknowledge the problem and they're arguing about differing solutions. In America our conservatives are denying scientific reality.

Also, you can't expect other nations to honor Kyoto when the US has never ratified it because our reality denying conservatives won't play ball. It's bad faith to tout the other side's failures when it's the obstructionism of your side which is causing it.

 

[Paratus]

I'm sorry I can't determine if your tongue was in your cheek or not; if this was, forget my response.



They did but serious science cannot just say "We didn't consider this important when it is important; when it has happened before man was a factor anymore than a wildebeest intakes oxygen and expels carbon dioxide. The elephant in the corner is important and needs to be addressed before it can be dismissed.

When I questioned how they could wave a magic hand and say this is not relevant I really think they were saying we need to condense loads of work and so we will dismiss. Briefly isn't brevity; too brief can be dangerous if your intended audience are your peers. I read the same articles the atmospheric physicists do; am looking for a way to quantify triggering mechanisms and realize only by identifying as many non man induced as climate change mechanisms as possible; if only because any such missed natural mechanisms very much will invalid research in the deniers who lurk among those peer reviewing.

As for what I wrote that you take umbrage be fair; I gave three possibilities; example the sky is plaid; striped or a hue of colors influenced by amount of visible light passing through the atmosphere so it approaches black at night and sky blue at noon when clouds or a roof don't impede the view. I really didn't think the authors were plaid (lazy), striped (deceitful) or completely though in their methodology; my tongue was in my cheek when I said the might introduce understudied climate mechanisms that question their conclusion because it is my pet peeve.

They do however appear lazy and deceitful when a scientific programmer (Not a climatologist) like myself can easily fault their graph by simply saying, it happen 30,000 years ago, 60,000 etc. in a series of advances and withdrawals of ice over land (no major influence by man). I can cite 150,000 years ago and 300,000 years ago methane and CO2 levels were greater than now and each time the earth began a long steady decline to a mile of ice laid over Wisconsin. and man wasn't a player so obviously all should dismiss that graph as junk science and perhaps all current research in global climate change; beware their be dragons beyond this place, which was written on maps of the unknown or explored territory. I want to expose the supposed dragons as areas that nee to be explored.

Your wrote They do a pretty good job of explaining their assumptions in terms of calculating the values they are looking for and for their intended audience. I feel good science should be able to explain why.

Seriously you have to establish the uniqueness of the premises used for drawing a conclusion; otherwise (tongue goes back in my cheek) we'll have the decline in pirates being the cause of global climate change.

Again, I read everything I could search at that ACS site you recommended looking for in climate change and found what I perceived as few flaws; they are the same things that cause grief to those scientists I program for. In case you don't remember I know the math; I don't know all the answers but I do know that the complexity of climate change is greater than current research addresses.

I just wished to point out that not everything on those pages reflects good science. That said, what they did cover, they did well but they say both sides of water vapor in the air going well into the negative forcing as well as the positive forcing; then you go to a page and they start 11.700 years ago and have a trending line of global warming attributed to greenhouse gas alone.

You wrote "remember that while this was written for technical people like engineers to do climate calculations..." (I resemble them).

You wrote "it doesn't go as in depth as the IPCC and all its referenced literature does..." (The physicists I program for go there).



A good place for others on this thread to go; too High School for my reading. This is P&N - I get trolled because I can't tell always tell when some are being serious or facetious.

Simply put the more accuracy you want the more data you need and the more difficult the calculations.

Like I said earlier the simplest model only requires the temperature of the sun, the distance to the sun and it's diameter, and the planets diameter and albedo. That's good enough to be dead on accurate for Mercury, 12% (33 deg C) off for Earth and wildly inaccurate for Venus.

I can do that calculation in about 15 minutes.

The IPCC has an accuracy of less than a degree but it takes hundreds of scientists, experiments and super computing time to get that accurate, (I think you've said you've worked on these types of models).

So if the ACS tool box still doesn't provide enough accuracy then you'll need to dig through the IPCC.

 

[buckshot24]

No problem.

If your really trying to pin me down I guess the following sums up my thoughts on the matter.

• For practicing climate scientists greater than %90 agree with the consensus.
• An even greater number agree man is at least contributing to warming
• That some authors studies were mischaracterized but not really enough to significantly change the percentages.

People like Roy Spencer would be included in that consensus. Too broad to be meaningful.

 

[fskimospy]

People like Roy Spencer would be included in that consensus. Too broad to be meaningful.

Wait, you're a climate change denier too?

 

[buckshot24]

Wait, you're a climate change denier too?

Don't worry about me. How about with what I said.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't worry about me. How about with what I said.

Oh, well in that case I would say you should read the paper on the 97% consensus more closely. In addition to compiling their own ratings they had authors self-rate and the results were very similar.

It doesn't mean that no one could be misclassified, but it does mean the conclusions of the paper on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change are quite strong.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh, well in that case I would say you should read the paper on the 97% consensus more closely. In addition to compiling their own ratings they had authors self-rate and the results were very similar.

It doesn't mean that no one could be misclassified, but it does mean the conclusions of the paper on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change are quite strong.

What Paratus stated for consensus I'd agree with as well. Too broad.

 

[fskimospy]

What Paratus stated for consensus I'd agree with as well. Too broad.

What about it is too broad, specifically?

 

[Jaskalas]

What about it is too broad, specifically?

97% study

2,933 papers: CO2 is a green house gas.
934 papers: Man's emissions can and do effect global temp.
65 papers: Man is majority responsible for observed warming.

Half a percent (0.5%) of all papers from the study do what you claim.