Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in Peer-reviewed literature

[Paratus]

I'd love for you to explain that one. Can't wait.

Heat mass transfer covers radiative, conductive and convective heat transfer.

That big bright ball in the sky heats the Earth through radiative heat transfer. We have satellites that measure this output.

The Earth absorbs this radiation and then reradiates it. We have satellites that measure the reradiated flux.

If the energy in from the sun = energy out from the Earth then the system is in equilibrium and the temperature is constant.

In our case measurements show a 1W/m^2 difference. The Earth will warm until it radiates the excess energy and reaches equilibrium.

This is basic engineering for any thermal system.

 

[hans030390]

Am I the only one who actually read the article? The article clearly says 97.1% of abstracts EXPRESSING A POSITION formed a consensus for MMGW. Of the abstracts, 66.4% DID NOT express a position, while 33.6% did express a position (either negative, positive, or uncertain)...

If you had read a bit closer, they did clearly explain their rationale behind it. The article stated that many abstracts and papers didn't express an opinion or position on whether or not climate change was caused by humans because of the huge consensus behind it. So, basically, they claimed that positions weren't expressed because the scientists/authors thought it was common knowledge that didn't need an opinion or position behind it.

At least going off memory, I think that was more or less what was said. If true, it would make sense and fits the argument. However, it could also be taken the other way and perceived as incorrect logic built to support their argument. I'm not really sure which it is ultimately...you'd have to ask the original scientists and authors what their "no position/opinion" meant to see if the study's rationale was BS or not.

 

[Paratus]

If you had read a bit closer, they did clearly explain their rationale behind it. The article stated that many abstracts and papers didn't express an opinion or position on whether or not climate change was caused by humans because of the huge consensus behind it. So, basically, they claimed that positions weren't expressed because the scientists/authors thought it was common knowledge that didn't need an opinion or position behind it.

At least going off memory, I think that was more or less what was said. If true, it would make sense and fits the argument. However, it could also be taken the other way and perceived as incorrect logic built to support their argument. I'm not really sure which it is ultimately...you'd have to ask the original scientists and authors what their "no position/opinion" meant to see if the study's rationale was BS or not.

That's what I remember as well.


I general when a scientist writes a paper supporting gravity or evolution they don't specifically state they are supporting the commonly held position.

Same with GW.

 

[xBiffx]

Heat mass transfer covers radiative, conductive and convective heat transfer.

That big bright ball in the sky heats the Earth through radiative heat transfer. We have satellites that measure this output.

The Earth absorbs this radiation and then reradiates it. We have satellites that measure the reradiated flux.

If the energy in from the sun = energy out from the Earth then the system is in equilibrium and the temperature is constant.

In our case measurements show a 1W/m^2 difference. The Earth will warm until it radiates the excess energy and reaches equilibrium.

This is basic engineering for any thermal system.

Seems like the sun has a lot more to do with it than anything. Glad you were honest. Now if we could just find a way to regulate the sun.

 

[Paratus]

Seems like the sun has a lot more to do with it than anything. Glad you were honest. Now if we could just find a way to regulate the sun.

The suns output has been pretty steady since. We started measuring it. Yet overall temperatures have been increasing. They even held steady while he sun had one of it's quietest periods on record.

So if the suns output went down and Earths temperature still held steady or went up we might want to look at why the Earth was absorbing more energy. :hmm:

Plus you do realize that we can and have tested the properties of CO2 in the lab. It does tend to absorb infrared.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Seems like the sun has a lot more to do with it than anything. Glad you were honest. Now if we could just find a way to regulate the sun.

Did your highschool not teach you about the greenhouse effect?

 

[bshole]

An in-depth study of climate change policy effects right here and right now would be helpful. Instead of "theoretical" suffering in the future, we inflict suffering right here and right now on impoverished third world nations. It seems barbaric. I wish some group would do a study of how many people die around the globe for each 1% of corn production diverted to ethanol. Surely the "scientists" projecting future deaths on their computer models could count ACTUAL deaths due to policies implemented in their name.

As I showed in my recent study, "The Costs to Developing Countries of US Ethanol Expansion", the US ethanol programme pushed up corn prices by up to 21 per cent as it expanded to consume 40 per cent of the US harvest. This price premium was passed on to corn importers, adding an estimated $11.6bn to the import bills of the world's corn-importing countries since 2005. More than half of that - $6.6bn - was paid by developing countries between 2005 and 2010. The highest cost was borne by the biggest corn importers. Mexico paid $1.1bnmore for its corn, Egypt $727m.

Besides Egypt, North African countries saw particularly high ethanol-related losses: Algeria ($329m), Morocco ($236m), Tunisia ($99m) and Libya ($68m). Impacts were also high in other strife-torn countries in the region - Syria ($242m), Iran ($492m) and Yemen ($58m). North Africa impacts totalled $1.4bn. Scaled to population size, these economic losses were at least as severe as those seen in Mexico. The link between high food prices and unrest in the region is by now well documented, and US ethanol is contributing to that instability.

Experts have debated how much of the price increases should be blamed on global biofuels expansion. Few argue now that the contribution is small. A US National Academy of Sciences review attributed 20-40 per cent of the 2007-2008 price spikes to global biofuels expansion. Subsequent studies have confirmed this range for the later price increases.

I get disgusted when "scientists" discuss poor crop yields due to global warming as cause of the food shortage problem. WE ARE USING 40 PERCENT of our corn for biofuel!!!!! That's enough to feed the hungry right there. Instead of hypothetical problems which global warming policy purports to solve, it generates REAL and devastating problems RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW. Feed the hungry first! IF anything is left over, use that.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I think most scientists would agree corn ethanol is not a solution. The fertilizers and other resources that go into its production hardly make it carbon neutral. Unfortunately its hard to repeal agriculture subsidies due to their lobby's.

 

[Paratus]

An in-depth study of climate change policy effects right here and right now would be helpful. Instead of "theoretical" suffering in the future, we inflict suffering right here and right now on impoverished third world nations. It seems barbaric. I wish some group would do a study of how many people die around the globe for each 1% of corn production diverted to ethanol. Surely the "scientists" projecting future deaths on their computer models could count ACTUAL deaths due to policies implemented in their name.





I get disgusted when "scientists" discuss poor crop yields due to global warming as cause of the food shortage problem. WE ARE USING 40 PERCENT of our corn for biofuel!!!!! That's enough to feed the hungry right there. Instead of hypothetical problems which global warming policy purports to solve, it generates REAL and devastating problems RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW. Feed the hungry first! IF anything is left over, use that.

No scientist recommend using corn for fuel. Corn farmers and congress does.

Your arguments also having nothing to do with whether MMGW is real.

Now personally I think the best way to combat global warming is to take a larger hit to the environment in the short term for a better long term gain. As you pointed out the third world is large problem. The best way to reduce our impact on the climate is to reduce the number of people.

The best way to reduce people is to feed, educate, and employ them. Once they reach an American/Western European/ Japanese quality of life birth rates drop dramatically and so does demand for power.

However to get there we'll have to use more solar, wind, and nuclear at best. And realistically more gas coal and oil in the short term.

Increasing efficiency means markets won't have to shrink once the population starts dipping and we can hold onto fossil fuels to burn to stave off the next ice age if/when the climate shifts towards cooling.

 

[CZroe]

About 20 years ago, Discover Magazine's lead editor created a policy that the magazine would only carry AGW-supporting articles. :hmm:

I no longer subscribe.

 

[Spungo]

Now personally I think the best way to combat global warming is to take a larger hit to the environment in the short term for a better long term gain. As you pointed out the third world is large problem. The best way to reduce our impact on the climate is to reduce the number of people.

Your policy of "stop having so many damn kids" has a racial bias because black people have more kids than white people. You will be called a racist simply because you care about the future of our species. Welcome to America btw

You can avoid the implied racism against black people by specifically targeting white people. Change your platform to say white people should have fewer kids. That way it's not racist

 

[Agent11]

Again? This has a deja-vu feel to it.

Assume you have convinced me although it bears no relevance to the question I am going to pose to you.

Now what?

No feelgood shit. No do something for the sake of doing something. The task ahead of you is based on the assumption that you can control the climate of our planet. How would you accomplish this? I have broken it down to four basic steps. Answer these questions.

Do what? (A plan. A roadmap using technology that exists.)

How much will it cost? (Please include where the money is coming from.)

How long will it take? (If you have a plan and know the costs, you should be able to project a timeline.)

What will the end result be? (You have just made a business case. You should be able to predict the results with a fair degree of accuracy.)

This is your second post that I am aware of in which you present a point of view that Global Warming is man made. What are you trying to accomplish by making these posts? There is no purpose to rehashing this same topic over and over and over and over. If you truly believe, tell us the steps to take to change the climate of the planet.

If you can't answer the questions, then cease bringing up the subject. It serves no logical purpose.

The only thing we could do is transition away from burning fossil fuels.

LFTR reactors would provide safe and abundant energy, hydrogen fuel cells would provide transportation.

 

[Paratus]

About 20 years ago, Discover Magazine's lead editor created a policy that the magazine would only carry AGW-supporting articles. :hmm:

I no longer subscribe.

Link?

 

[Paratus]

Your policy of "stop having so many damn kids" has a racial bias because black people have more kids than white people. You will be called a racist simply because you care about the future of our species. Welcome to America btw

You can avoid the implied racism against black people by specifically targeting white people. Change your platform to say white people should have fewer kids. That way it's not racist

My idea is socio-economic. Everyone has too many kids when they are poor and their lives are at risk on adult basis.

Stopping feeling persecuted.

 

[raildogg]

Global warming? Forget that. Call it the destruction of the earth, since that is what is happening. This occurs due to man's desire to improve, succeed, acquire, dominate. It's being made more sophisticated and efficient. Thus, the destruction of the world will only increase once the lesser developed nations start going the same route. Global warming is a tiny concern compared to what's facing the earth.

 

[Ichinisan]

The argument "AGW is true because everyone except you says it's true" is the problem. Don't start with that reasoning.

I do believe the earth is warming. I'm not certain that it's driven by mankind and I'm not even certain that CO2 is primarily responsible. There has simply been too much data-fudging to believe any research I didn't do myself...and I'm no scientist.

That said: Warming may be the only reason the world isn't starving right now.

 

[Ichinisan]

Global warming? Forget that. Call it the destruction of the earth, since that is what is happening. This occurs due to man's desire to improve, succeed, acquire, dominate. It's being made more sophisticated and efficient. Thus, the destruction of the world will only increase once the lesser developed nations start going the same route. Global warming is a tiny concern compared to what's facing the earth.

Watch the link in my previous post. The whole thing.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The argument "AGW is true because everyone except you says it's true" is the problem. Don't start with that reasoning.

I do believe the earth is warming. I'm not certain that it's driven by mankind and I'm not even certain that CO2 is primarily responsible. There has simply been too much data-fudging to believe any research I didn't do myself...and I'm no scientist.

That said: Warming may be the only reason the world isn't starving right now.

What data fudging are you talking about. Don't make wild accusations without providing proof. All the climategate shit was drummed up BS that led to nothing. The koch brothers funded their own study and the scientists they hired ended up with the same results as the original report. One of the climatologists who they hired ended up converting from being a skeptic to accepting anthropological global warming.

 

[monovillage]

What data fudging are you talking about. Don't make wild accusations without providing proof. All the climategate shit was drummed up BS that led to nothing. The koch brothers funded their own study and the scientists they hired ended up with the same results as the original report. One of the climatologists who they hired ended up converting from being a skeptic to accepting anthropological global warming.

You fucking liar. I'd love to see a credible link to that. By credible I mean that Skeptical Science blog isn't credible.

 

[monovillage]

More on the topic of this particular paper by Mr. Cook.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists who's papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

"The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading."

 

[BlueWolf47]

You fucking liar. I'd love to see a credible link to that. By credible I mean that Skeptical Science blog isn't credible.

Of course im a liar and your obviously not a dumbass.

The specific scientist was Richard A. Muller and he worked on the climate change study funded by koch.

He published an oped in the nytimes after completing the study.

By RICHARD A. MULLER
July 28, 2012
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

[fskimospy]

Of course im a liar and your obviously not a dumbass.

The specific scientist was Richard A. Muller and he worked on the climate change study funded by koch.

He published an oped in the nytimes after completing the study.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Don't expect monovillage to admit being wrong, but you can still enjoy rubbing his face in his own stupidity for awhile.

 

[BlueWolf47]

I kinda feel bad for him. I would hate to know what it's like to have a learning disability.

 

[Paratus]

The argument "AGW is true because everyone except you says it's true" is the problem. Don't start with that reasoning.

I do believe the earth is warming. I'm not certain that it's driven by mankind and I'm not even certain that CO2 is primarily responsible. There has simply been too much data-fudging to believe any research I didn't do myself...and I'm no scientist.

That said: Warming may be the only reason the world isn't starving right now.

Straight from a climate scientist:

If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet.

And of course warming has helped us. To little means an ice age, but what we have is a shockingly high rate of change in global temperatures. It's going to cost all of us in the form of higher food prices, insurance rates, and in third world countries lives.

 

[Paratus]

Don't expect monovillage to admit being wrong, but you can still enjoy rubbing his face in his own stupidity for awhile.

Hell you can't even expect him to argue without calling you some choice four letter words. But when that's all you got....