Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Conan71]

Why don't you go find a real study published in a real, well regarded journal that actually flat out rejects man made climate change. One that is cited by any climate researcher who is not working for or paid by the energy industry. Just one.

Show me a pro AGW which isn't paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.

[Hoss]

Show me a pro AGW which isn't paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.

And thus the cycle continues, while our planet goes in the $h!tter.  We should probably stop arguing about it and actually do something meaningful...

[Red Arrow]

We should probably stop arguing about it and actually do something meaningful...

Even if it is incorrect and ultimately harmful to the desired outcome.

[Hoss]

Even if it is incorrect and ultimately harmful to the desired outcome.

Why is that not an unexpected response, especially from you.



Do you think that churning the emissions we've been churning into the atmosphere at the rates we have been is the answer?  Because if so, then I'll defer to your 'correctness'.  I sure would like to leave a somewhat liveable planet for future generations.

[swake]

Show me a pro AGW which isn't paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.

NASA?

[swake]

NASA?

180 scientists in Iowa from 38 colleges
http://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/2014/10/10/iowa-climate-statement-2014-impacts-on-the-health-of-iowans/

97.1% of scholarly papers?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Seriously, rejecting the science at this point is nothing less than idiotic, delusional and more than a little sad.

Find a paper, anything. one paper. That study I just quoted looked at over 11,000.

[heironymouspasparagus]

NASA?

Careful with that....and your next post - you know how reality is such an everlasting gobstopper to most of the people of this state!  And the rest of the country for that matter!  The real world can't even get them to understand the counting of tree rings and ice layers!


Edit -
I bet the RWRE hidden agenda is directly related to ice sheets....they are the single most unambiguous testament to the fact that the earth is over 6,000 years old - layers going back well over 400,000 years!   If the radical reactionary religious elements can keep global warming going "just long enough" to melt the ice sheets, then there is no remaining eyeball count item that proves their lies!!  400,000 years of history erased for all time!    Don't think it hasn't crossed their minds....

[Conan71]

180 scientists in Iowa from 38 colleges
http://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/2014/10/10/iowa-climate-statement-2014-impacts-on-the-health-of-iowans/

97.1% of scholarly papers?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Seriously, rejecting the science at this point is nothing less than idiotic, delusional and more than a little sad.

Find a paper, anything. one paper. That study I just quoted looked at over 11,000.

Uh Swake, I already posted a few pages back that the flawed methodology of the Cook et al study to arrive at the 97% consensus was completely bunk.  Cook's research team cherry-picked key words from papers and apparently did not even read the entire content.  At least according to authors of those papers sampled.  As I posted last week and you apparently ignored:

John Cook, who came up with the survey meme of "peer reviewed" papers on global warming, has very questionable methodology.  In fact, authors of papers which supposedly supported AGW were randomly sampled, and they were miffed at the conclusions reached by Cook's panel.  There's also overwhelming evidence that Cook's team simply cherry picked key statements from papers, not even considering the context of how it was used in the paper.  This literally was not much more than a keyword search.

Quote
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose 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.

Quote
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Quote
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

Quote
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

Quote
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

I doubt you will take time to read it, but TCP (The Consensus Project) was clearly a contrived marketing campaign with a pre-determined outcome to match the message Cook and others wanted to convey:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

[Conan71]

NASA?

Where does NASA's funding come from? 

[Conan71]

[swake]

nm. no message.

not even worth it.

[Hoss]

nm. no message.

not even worth it.

Swake, you'll never change the deniers, much like the deniers will never change us.

The way I look at is that when the problems start occurring that our children and children's children have to start dealing with, they'll look back and wonder why we did nothing.  Arguing about it seems to be the normal thing to do.

Instead of actually...maybe...doing something prevantative.  Even if there are those in disagreement.  What does that hurt?  And before you guys say we *are* doing something, we aren't doing nearly enough.  IMO.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Uh Swake, I already posted a few pages back that the flawed methodology of the Cook et al study to arrive at the 97% consensus was completely bunk.  Cook's research team cherry-picked key words from papers and apparently did not even read the entire content.  At least according to authors of those papers sampled.  As I posted last week and you apparently ignored:

Cook specifically defined how he got those numbers - it was from the abstract (summary) of the papers, taken only from papers that expressed an opinion one way or the other in the abstract, thereby summarizing what was in the paper.  He also very clearly said that about 65% of the papers showed no opinion, removing them from the 'count'.

[Conan71]

Swake, people who are absolutely convinced their actions are contributing to AGW need to start acting on it if they feel so strongly instead of sitting around blathering about it.  The the most irritating part of it is the people I personally know who talk loudest about AGW lead the least sustainable lifestyles.  Start walking, riding your bike, and taking public transit, buy an electric car.  Install wind and solar power on your house.  Grow/raise as much of your own food as possible. 

I believe there is climate change, in fact, most educated people do.  The climate has always changed and evolved on earth.  I believe some of it, such as heat islands, are most definitely the result of human activity.  It's impossible to believe that there hasn't been some change to the overall climate since the start of the industrial revolution purely based on increased emissions and waste BTU's going into the atmosphere.

Here's where I depart from your dogma:  Panic and outright lies induced by forced conclusions and political agendas for power and monetary gain. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Swake, you'll never change the deniers, much like the deniers will never change us.

The way I look at is that when the problems start occurring that our children and children's children have to start dealing with, they'll look back and wonder why we did nothing.  Arguing about it seems to be the normal thing to do.

Instead of actually...maybe...doing something prevantative.  Even if there are those in disagreement.  What does that hurt?  And before you guys say we *are* doing something, we aren't doing nearly enough.  IMO.

That's always the human condition.  The heirs to this world are well and truly stuffed....

We are not proactively doing anything!  There are entities in the world (along the lines of Elon Musk) who are taking certain fields to the next level.  Countries like Germany that are pushing very hard on solar/wind, etc.  But the US is just kinda coasting along - with some places....Oklahoma! - actively discouraging progress in these areas!  And we just keep on electing them... yeah, OK is gonna be an easy sell to the kind of outside companies we are hearing about when the Liar In Chief talks about good paying jobs...Not!

Coca-Cola and Google represent two extremely high profile/visibility companies that will likely have a long term presence here, but when you look at their proactive embrace of solar, it doesn't take much in the mental horsepower area to figure out they will not consider Oklahoma 'key' to their larger efforts.