PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming, revisited



jack grebe
04-14-2016, 07:31 PM
Are humans responsible, or just a contributing factor?



P.S. I prefer climate change to global warming.........

CWSmith
04-14-2016, 08:03 PM
There really is no debate on this. It correlates too well with the rise of the industrial age.

Debating this only gives credence to the denialists.

WX
04-14-2016, 08:11 PM
Are humans responsible, or just a contributing factor?



P.S. I prefer climate change to global warming.........


The planet is warming therefore the climate is changing.

genglandoh
04-14-2016, 08:13 PM
What we know
1. The climate of the earth has always been changing.
2. There is a 100,000 year temperature cycle.
3. Today we are at the top the last 100,000 year cycle.
4. Each 100,000 year peak has been smaller then the one before
5. The current 100,000 peak is lower the past 3 peaks.
6. Looking at CO2 the temp moves first then the CO2 level changes.
7. Today something is different the CO2 is very high because of man.
8. Even with the high level of CO2 the temp has not moved outside the natural historical record.


http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.preview.jpg

WX
04-14-2016, 08:18 PM
What we know
1. The climate of the earth has always been changing.
2. There is a 100,000 year temperature cycle.
3. Today we are at the top the last 100,000 year cycle.
4. Each 100,000 year peak has been smaller then the one before
5. The current 100,000 peak is lower the past 3 peaks.
6. Looking at CO2 the temp moves first then the CO2 level changes.
7. Today something is different the CO2 is very high because of man.
8. Even with the high level of CO2 the temp has not moved outside the natural historical record.


http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.preview.jpg
So wrong in so many ways. CO2 first then Temperature.

pipefitter
04-15-2016, 12:15 AM
Iiittt's the. . . ."Hypocrite and Denier Show!"

Peerie Maa
04-15-2016, 04:50 AM
Are humans responsible, or just a contributing factor?



P.S. I prefer climate change to global warming.........


There really is no debate on this. It correlates too well with the rise of the industrial age.

Debating this only gives credence to the denialists.

Just so, it started when we replaced waterwheels by steam engines to power industry, and began burning fossil fuels like it was going out of fashion.

jack grebe
04-15-2016, 05:13 AM
Just so, it started when we replaced waterwheels by steam engines to power industry, and began burning fossil fuels like it was going out of fashion.

But again, is it proven to be caused by man?

Has mankind simply helped it along?

Was it going to happen anyway?

LeeG
04-15-2016, 05:37 AM
But again, is it proven to be caused by man?

Has mankind simply helped it along?

Was it going to happen anyway?

I think the problem is the rate of change. In Gengs favorite graph homo saps have had 10,000 yrs of relative temperature stability with homo saps population almost being wiped out 70,000 yrs ago to a few million 10,000 yrs ago. Now with 7billion and an unprecedented rate of change in a matter of a century it would seem the ability to adapt will be very difficult for most complex animals.

Ps. Yes, proven to be caused by man

Peerie Maa
04-15-2016, 06:11 AM
But again, is it proven to be caused by man?

Has mankind simply helped it along?

Was it going to happen anyway?


I think the problem is the rate of change. In Gengs favorite graph homo saps have had 10,000 yrs of relative temperature stability with homo saps population almost being wiped out 70,000 yrs ago to a few million 10,000 yrs ago. Now with 7billion and an unprecedented rate of change in a matter of a century it would seem the ability to adapt will be very difficult for most complex animals.

There is no other credible cause. The temperature was bimbling along with various ice ages and warm spells until the temperature curve started its rapid rise about 200 years ago. The rate of rise is faster than any previous changes in climate from geological eras.

Paul Pless
04-15-2016, 06:25 AM
There is no other credible cause. The temperature was bimbling along with various ice ages and warm spells until the temperature curve started its rapid rise about 200 years ago. The rate of rise is faster than any previous changes in climate from geological eras.exponentially so

Flying Orca
04-15-2016, 07:03 AM
The IPCC, the international body appointed to review the state of the science and report back to the world's governments, stated in its last comprehensive report (2015's Fifth Assessment Report) that global warming is unequivocal, which is to say that there is absolutely no doubt that it is happening. It also stated that it is extremely likely (confidence greater than 95%) that human activity is the main cause of the warming observed since 1950. We have a very good idea of how much CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) human activity has added to the atmosphere, and the scientific consensus is that without anthropogenic forcing, we would likely be in a slight cooling trend.

Flying Orca
04-15-2016, 07:13 AM
1. The climate of the earth has always been changing.

N slo, Sherlock... but completely irrelevant to what humans are doing to the planet's climate right now.


2. There is a 100,000 year temperature cycle.

Completely irrelevant to what humans are doing to the planet's climate right now.


3. Today we are at the top the last 100,000 year cycle.

Wrong. Without taking human activity into account, it appears that we would be in a cooling trend.


4. Each 100,000 year peak has been smaller then the one before

Completely irrelevant to what humans are doing to the planet's climate right now.


5. The current 100,000 peak is lower the past 3 peaks.

Again, completely irrelevant to what humans are doing to the planet's climate right now.


6. Looking at CO2 the temp moves first then the CO2 level changes.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The relationship is more complicated than that, but that is not readily apparent from the scale of your graph... which is why denialistas love to tell lies based on that graph.


7. Today something is different the CO2 is very high because of man.

Correct - and getting higher.


8. Even with the high level of CO2 the temp has not moved outside the natural historical record.

This is a phenomenon that is expected to go on for at least several centuries, perhaps longer, and the natural record is completely irrelevant to the impact of rapidly increasing temperatures upon our civilization, its economy, and the lives of billions of people. Your failure to grasp or acknowledge this, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, speaks poorly of your critical thinking skills, to say nothing of your intellectual honesty.

Nicholas Scheuer
04-15-2016, 07:14 AM
Sure, every year gets hotter than the one before, and we've now reached a "lower" peak? What sort of screwball science is that?

Jim Mahan
04-15-2016, 07:19 AM
How many dozen threads do we need on this subject?

Peerie Maa
04-15-2016, 07:21 AM
Dunno, you had better ask Geng if he is ever going to engage his brain.

LeeG
04-15-2016, 07:22 AM
FO, assuming fossil fuel extraction tapers down considerably in a century any thoughts on how long it'll take for this spike in CO2 to be reabsorbed and no longer a factor in forcing temps, with or without methane release? 1000-5000yrs?

LeeG
04-15-2016, 07:24 AM
How many dozen threads do we need on this subject?

About 1/4 the number of election threads and 1/10 the number of boat pron threads.

Flying Orca
04-15-2016, 07:32 AM
FO, assuming fossil fuel extraction tapers down considerably in a century any thoughts on how long it'll take for this spike in CO2 to be reabsorbed and no longer a factor in forcing temps, with or without methane release? 1000-5000yrs?

I believe that's about the scale (tipping points aside, obviously), but I don't recall specific numbers.

Norman Bernstein
04-15-2016, 07:33 AM
Are humans responsible, or just a contributing factor?


Here's a way to look at it, Jack.

Suppose you're diagnosed with coronary artery disease, and your doctor says you need a bypass.

Well, we're all familiar with the disease... few people don't have some relative who developed heart disease. We read about it all the time... countless news articles talk about its causes, and pretty much anyone knows what coronary bypass surgery is all about... it's been videoed and shown on TV a number of times. Some of us might even be aware of recent advances in treatment; robotic surgery, or minimally invasive surgery with laproscopic techniques? One artery, two, three, four, or all five?

You COULD say that we all have a certain degree of 'expertise' in the subject... if you are reasonably literate and read and watch the news and TV, then you know far more about the disease, the prognosis, and the treatments, than someone who has spent the last 20 years in a cabin in the woods without electricity or communication with the greater world.

So you take the advice of your doctor.... and surgery is scheduled. You've been informed of the risks, so you're aware that the surgery is NOT an absolute guarantee that in 6 months time, you'll be back on the golf course for all 18 holes. There's a chance.... a few percent, as things stand these days... that you'll contract some iatrogenic infection and die... but you've got the best information you can have.

So... who among us would second-guess the doctor... and presume that our 'common' knowledge of heart disease was in any way equivalent to that of the doctor?

Yet, when it comes to 'climate change', 'global warming', or any of the various names we call it, it's not hard at all to find people who make the presumption that they have the skill, the knowledge, and the expertise to contradict the large majority of scientists who say that human efforts are indeed responsible for a good deal of the problem.

There are so many ways in which each and every one of us needs to defer to 'expertise' as we wander our way in life. Perhaps, for example, you think your air conditioner has a freon leak... maybe you happen to have an electronic freon sniffer, a set of manifold gauges, and a canister of replacement freon.... bot for most of us, we call the HVAC guy, and pay him to fix it. If your electronic engine control in your car craps the bed, you bring it to the dealer. You don't fill your own cavities in your teeth, and (unless you're a fool) you don't represent yourself if you're on trial for some crime.

In life, we ALL have to defer to experts from time to time. Maybe you have an expertise of your own.... what do you say to some amateur who attempts to do what YOU are an expert at, and screws it all up? "If you had only come to me, the job could have been done right, the first time"......

Admittedly, climate science is less black-and-white than we'd like it to be, so there are certainly arguable points about the conclusions of research; what portion of climate science is a consequence of natural cycles on the Earth that have nothing to do with man-made events, and what portions are clearly the result of Man?

I can't answer that question.... because I'm not an expert.

However, if you need some precision electronic circuit designed... then I'm your man.

So, when the debate is about climate change or global warming, the most credible lay voices are the ones who say, "Well, I don't have any true expertise in the field, so I HAVE to defer to those who do."... and when there's a minority dissent among the ranks of the experts, there's NO basis to simply 'prefer' the dissenters, because one's political interests are more closely aligned with them.

It doesn't mean that one has to take the consensus opinion without the slightest question...

...but it DOES mean that it deserves overwhelming weight.

See my point?

LeeG
04-15-2016, 07:44 AM
Norman it's a very clear point. it's kinda a bizarre that self-identified non-experts are able to delude themselves as providing any kind of substantial counter argument.

"Ok Doc, I have a some clogged arteries, you sure it's not a foggy X-ray and too much chili?"

Norman Bernstein
04-15-2016, 07:50 AM
Norman it's a very clear point. it's kinda a bizarre that self-identified non-experts are able to delude themselves as providing any kind of substantial counter argument.


Yeah, that's it. Denial of expertise runs VERY strong in American society. Sometimes, it's a consequence of the 'intensive hobbyist', someone whose education and training does NOT qualify them as an expert... but their avid interest deludes them into thinking that they are.

Even among professionals, it's often the case that someone with expertise needs to consult someone with MORE expertise to resolve issues. Throughout my 40 year career, there were times when *I* was the 'expert'... and times when I needed the advice of someone with greater expertise.

One good thing about the internet, for people like me who work alone, is that the net represents a source of expertise. Last week, I was working on a particular circuit in which I was NOT an expert.... thankfully, Google was only a fingertip away!

Jim Mahan
04-15-2016, 07:56 AM
About 1/4 the number of election threads and 1/10 the number of boat pron threads.

It occured to me that a person curious about the climate change controversy might study the WBF's numerous threads on the subject, from over the years, and so get a compelling education. I wonder if the posters, the regular posters to these threads, and lurkers, you know who you are, correspond to the ninety-seven to three ratio of climate scientists agreeing or disagreeing with the consensus.

I'll grant that the threads about that man with the hair and his cohort is tedious, and it is fairly easy to get enough of political discourse. But Pron? Most of them aren't even whole threads, just a single post. Mama, don't take my pron away.

Paul Pless
04-15-2016, 07:56 AM
Here's a way to look at it, Jack.

Suppose you're diagnosed with coronary artery disease, and your doctor says you need a bypass.

Well, we're all familiar with the disease... few people don't have some relative who developed heart disease. We read about it all the time... countless news articles talk about its causes, and pretty much anyone knows what coronary bypass surgery is all about... it's been videoed and shown on TV a number of times. Some of us might even be aware of recent advances in treatment; robotic surgery, or minimally invasive surgery with laproscopic techniques? One artery, two, three, four, or all five?

You COULD say that we all have a certain degree of 'expertise' in the subject... if you are reasonably literate and read and watch the news and TV, then you know far more about the disease, the prognosis, and the treatments, than someone who has spent the last 20 years in a cabin in the woods without electricity or communication with the greater world.

So you take the advice of your doctor.... and surgery is scheduled. You've been informed of the risks, so you're aware that the surgery is NOT an absolute guarantee that in 6 months time, you'll be back on the golf course for all 18 holes. There's a chance.... a few percent, as things stand these days... that you'll contract some iatrogenic infection and die... but you've got the best information you can have.

So... who among us would second-guess the doctor... and presume that our 'common' knowledge of heart disease was in any way equivalent to that of the doctor?

Yet, when it comes to 'climate change', 'global warming', or any of the various names we call it, it's not hard at all to find people who make the presumption that they have the skill, the knowledge, and the expertise to contradict the large majority of scientists who say that human efforts are indeed responsible for a good deal of the problem.

There are so many ways in which each and every one of us needs to defer to 'expertise' as we wander our way in life. Perhaps, for example, you think your air conditioner has a freon leak... maybe you happen to have an electronic freon sniffer, a set of manifold gauges, and a canister of replacement freon.... bot for most of us, we call the HVAC guy, and pay him to fix it. If your electronic engine control in your car craps the bed, you bring it to the dealer. You don't fill your own cavities in your teeth, and (unless you're a fool) you don't represent yourself if you're on trial for some crime.

In life, we ALL have to defer to experts from time to time. Maybe you have an expertise of your own.... what do you say to some amateur who attempts to do what YOU are an expert at, and screws it all up? "If you had only come to me, the job could have been done right, the first time"......

Admittedly, climate science is less black-and-white than we'd like it to be, so there are certainly arguable points about the conclusions of research; what portion of climate science is a consequence of natural cycles on the Earth that have nothing to do with man-made events, and what portions are clearly the result of Man?

I can't answer that question.... because I'm not an expert.

However, if you need some precision electronic circuit designed... then I'm your man.

So, when the debate is about climate change or global warming, the most credible lay voices are the ones who say, "Well, I don't have any true expertise in the field, so I HAVE to defer to those who do."... and when there's a minority dissent among the ranks of the experts, there's NO basis to simply 'prefer' the dissenters, because one's political interests are more closely aligned with them.

It doesn't mean that one has to take the consensus opinion without the slightest question...

...but it DOES mean that it deserves overwhelming weight.

See my point?


Jesus Norman, those 681 words seem to go contrary to your new signature. . .

Flying Orca
04-15-2016, 08:14 AM
FO, assuming fossil fuel extraction tapers down considerably in a century any thoughts on how long it'll take for this spike in CO2 to be reabsorbed and no longer a factor in forcing temps, with or without methane release? 1000-5000yrs?

UPDATE: I found this, which suggests that most of the carbon sticks around for "hundreds of years" (the math is somewhat fuzzy), but around 25% of can be expected to stick around much longer.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

jack grebe
04-15-2016, 08:19 AM
Jesus Norman, those 681 words seem to go contrary to your new signature. . .

Spewwwww, you counted?

Paul Pless
04-15-2016, 08:28 AM
for the overly wordy mofo types (http://wordcounttools.com/)

Norman Bernstein
04-15-2016, 09:03 AM
Jesus Norman, those 681 words seem to go contrary to your new signature. . .

I'll ALWAYS take the time and effort to explain something, to someone with a sincere and innocent interest.

It's the jerks who clearly are not amenable to any sort of explanation, that I refuse to take my crayons out for :):):)

jack grebe
04-15-2016, 10:56 AM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

Peerie Maa
04-15-2016, 11:08 AM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

Do you use satnav?
Do you understand Fractals? They are used to design your mobile phone aerial.
And so it goes on :D

genglandoh
04-15-2016, 11:20 AM
Looking at the historical temperature trend we see nothing happening differently today that has happen before.
Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

LeeG
04-15-2016, 11:29 AM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

So it's been explained dozens of times. If you don't understand it why wouldn't you simply say "I don't know" instead of "I don't accept it".

Norman Bernstein
04-15-2016, 11:33 AM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

Why do you presume that you would understand the explanation? Science can be both subtle, and excruciatingly complex.

There are times when our lack of expertise can result in only one reasonable response: "I don't have the education, nor the tools, to understand the issue well enough to make a judgment."

Keith Wilson
04-15-2016, 11:41 AM
I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't accept it.OK, fair enough. This means that you have an obligation to make your best efforts to understand the explanations when they're offered. Someone has explained it. Here's a link to the latest IPCC report, which summarizes in considerable detail the research that has been done, what we know, what we don't know, and the best knowledge human beings have about the subject. You can read it here. (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm) No, it's not simple; the earth's climate is complicated. But maintaining an honest healthy skepticism instead of relying on experts requires that you educate yourself well enough to do your own thinking.

Flying Orca
04-15-2016, 11:52 AM
Looking at the historical temperature trend we see nothing happening differently today that has happen before.

Your grammar is so terribly bad that your sentence is essentially incomprehensible gobbledygook, but this has definitely not happened before. Humans have never added greenhouse gases at the current rate until, geologically speaking, the present.


Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

Wrong; we can say with very high confidence (greater than 95%) that human activity is the main cause of the warming observed since 1950. You don't have to acknowledge it for it to be correct, but repeatedly waving your ignorance and unwillingness to learn under everyone's nose is not making you look particularly good.

skuthorp
04-15-2016, 04:17 PM
When the forecast future is possibly so dire and the likelyhood of a fix not probable you can expect many refusals to contemplate it at all. We are after all a short term species. Problem with that is that the consequences will be upon us in the short term.

ljb5
04-15-2016, 04:33 PM
Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

This is an illogical conclusion.

That would be like saying, "Well, you've definitely got cancer, but until your body temperature exceeds the fever you had years ago when you had the flu, we can't say for certain that you are sick."

skuthorp
04-15-2016, 04:38 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by genglandoh http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4861542#post4861542)
Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTx1Im8VBAhofx0aETR-OzkecgzQoccIfgvH8DWGDVEFN-zrDELA4vVxU

Grab a handfull Geng…………..

LeeG
04-15-2016, 05:00 PM
Looking at the historical temperature trend we see nothing happening differently today that has happen before.
Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide6

How strong is the scientific evidence that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause. Thousands of weather stations worldwide—over land and ocean—have been recording daily high and low temperatures for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different scientific and technical teams in different U.S. agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.'s Hadley Centre) average these data together, essentially the same results are found: Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5F (0.85C) since 1880.[15]

The primary cause is that, over the last 200 years, human activities have added about 500 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, increasing the abundance of this heat-trapping gas by about 40 percent. Today, humans add about 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1800 to about 398 ppm today.[19] Today's carbon dioxide levels are unusually high; much higher than at any other time in the last 800,000 years. The warming influence of heat-trapping gases was recognized in the mid-1800s.[14]

Peerie Maa
04-15-2016, 05:01 PM
Until the temperature moves higher or faster than the historical record one can not say man is causing the temperature to increase.

Well it would seem that it is moving faster:

A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4C to 7C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature. Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf


and

The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.
If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

Tom Montgomery
04-15-2016, 05:13 PM
From this morning’s Washington Post:


It’s a well-known and widely cited statistic: 97 percent (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024) of scientific experts agree that human-caused climate change is real. The consensus has been supported by numerous studies — and yet the idea that the statistic is made up, or wrong, is still a common position among climate doubters and a major tool used to foster public uncertainty about climate change.

Now, researchers have reinforced this finding of a scientific consensus once again in a new paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf), published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The paper finds that an overwhelming majority of climate experts agree on the issue, and that — even though the contrarian movement begs to differ — there is no substantial scientific debate about it.

While the consensus has been documented by many studies over the years, the most widely cited is a 2013 paper led by John Cook (http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook) of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute. The study examined thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that, among those papers that took a position on the causes of climate change, 97.1 percent of them supported the idea that global warming is caused by humans.

Earlier this year, however, University of Sussex professor Richard Tol (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/289812) published a comment (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta) criticizing the 2013 study and suggesting that 97 percent may be too high a figure. In his comment, Tol returned to some of the published research on the consensus and re-examined the accompanying data, noting that Cook’s paper did not include studies that took no position on climate change, and that surveys including scientists who don’t study climate tend to have somewhat lower rates of consensus.

After examining the comment, however, Cook and a team of other researchers concluded that these arguments were problematic at best. In their new paper, they re-examined the published literature on the climate consensus, finding that the 97 percent calculation remains a robust and well-supported statistic.

“The biggest flaw [in Tol’s argument] is that he misrepresents many of the other studies on the consensus,” said Cook, lead author on the new paper.

“He tries to argue that our paper is an outlier — is different to all the other studies in their estimates of the expert consensus,” Cook said. “But the way he arrives at the expert consensus is by using groups that include non-experts, which is a classic technique to try to obtain lower estimates of the scientific consensus.”

It’s true that scientists who don’t study climate also don’t accept the scientific consensus as strongly. But this variability is to be expected when non-experts are included, the authors of the new paper explain.

“A significant contributor to variation in consensus estimates is the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion,” they point out. When defining experts as scientists who actually study and publish on climate change — the people who are best qualified to take a position on the subject, in other words — the surveys consistently find consensus rates well above 90 percent.

The comment by Tol also took issue with another aspect of Cook’s 2013 paper — the fact that his analysis only considers papers that took a concrete stand on whether human-caused climate change is occurring. Tol noted that when papers with no position are included in a sample, the consensus shrinks considerably. But Cook finds this a questionable method.

“The question that our research addressed was: Is there an ongoing scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature about global warming?” Cook said. “To answer that question, you need to look at papers that state a position one way or the other.”

In fact, he added, the growing number of papers that express no explicit position on anthropogenic climate change is an indicator that the issue is past the point where its discussion is necessary.

“As a consensus gets stronger, you expect to see less and less papers stating a position on it — because it’s a consensus, you don’t really need to reaffirm what everyone knows,” Cook said. “It would be like every astronomy paper affirming that the Earth revolves around the sun.”

In fact, the new paper points out that a 2015 study actually demonstrated that if this method of including “no position” papers were applied to a survey of studies on plate tectonics, the results would require scientists “to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking ‘no position.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/

CWSmith
04-15-2016, 06:41 PM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

Call the papers. Alert the media. You have your doubts.

The sad thing is that you were not raised to question. You were raised to believe what you are told to believe by people who don't want to understand. You just pretend it's questioning.

Waddie
04-15-2016, 10:40 PM
I think the problem is the rate of change. In Gengs favorite graph homo saps have had 10,000 yrs of relative temperature stability with homo saps population almost being wiped out 70,000 yrs ago to a few million 10,000 yrs ago. Now with 7billion and an unprecedented rate of change in a matter of a century it would seem the ability to adapt will be very difficult for most complex animals.

Ps. Yes, proven to be caused by man

The danger isn't climate change; it's man. The materiel demands of a huge human population is destroying rain forests, fracking, mining, mono farming with chemicals. It isn't the CO2; it's our actions that are destructive. Ask how many middle class people the planet can sustainably support. Before the age of oil it was 3 billion. We are now on our way to 10 billion. 10 billion who want airconditioning, a house with a two or three car garage, meat on the table, and lots and lots of consumer merchandise. We will break this planet before we're done.

regards,
Waddie

hokiefan
04-15-2016, 10:48 PM
The danger isn't climate change; it's man. The materiel demands of a huge human population is destroying rain forests, fracking, mining, mono farming with chemicals. It isn't the CO2; it's our actions that are destructive. Ask how many middle class people the planet can sustainably support. Before the age of oil it was 3 billion. We are now on our way to 10 billion. 10 billion who want airconditioning, a house with a two or three car garage, meat on the table, and lots and lots of consumer merchandise. We will break this planet before we're done.

regards,
Waddie

Not exactly right. We will break ourselves and most of the other species, and then over time the planet will recover just fine.

Cheers,

Bobby

skuthorp
04-15-2016, 11:56 PM
It goes without saying that the sudden disappearance of the human species would solve the problem the rest of the worlds species have. Homo Sap. has been likened to a virus infecting the planet before.

David G
04-15-2016, 11:59 PM
It's all so complicated. Let's just take the hedonist's approach --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/12963546_10153680890946478_66275266871037091_n.jpg ?oh=704888a6d5fc47db8b9134281e094be7&oe=57743F79

LeeG
04-16-2016, 12:07 AM
It's all so complicated. Let's just take the hedonist's approach --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/12963546_10153680890946478_66275266871037091_n.jpg ?oh=704888a6d5fc47db8b9134281e094be7&oe=57743F79

Well done,
But bacon is sufficient.

PeterSibley
04-16-2016, 03:32 AM
Ok Norman, I can understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with your thinking of just trusting what the" experts " tell us.

I was raised differently.....to question everything.
So unless someone explains it, I don't except it.

Having just undergone rather extensive brain surgery my tendency is to trust people who have spent their lives learning and earning their expertise but feel free to get someone else to perform your surgery. You could be lucky and as for questioning, I wasn't really in condition to do so, I was unconscious.

On the subject of AGW the world is unconscious.

skuthorp
04-16-2016, 05:52 AM
Humans are like that Peter. The Californians live on a known major fault line either ignoring it or hoping they'll be elsewhere when it shifts. I live in a bushfire zone and plan to be elsewhere on a bad day. But fires can start on a reasonable day too. Humans are like that.
But when the climate shifts, there's no 'elsewhere' to be at.

Jim Mahan
04-16-2016, 08:04 AM
Because it seems there is always some ironic perversity in the way humans and nature occur, Hollywood tells us that though the catastrophe will be immense and devastating, it will never be so severe that it would really, literally kill off everybody, and so there will always be a cohort of survivors who got lucky enough, through hard work and family values, to wind up wherever the oasis of survivability occurs. A big gene pool cleansing, getting rid of all the dead weight, the weak the lame, the poor and panty-waist liberals, leaving only the very cream of humanity, and other species, the elite, who will found a new world order based on free markets ...

George Jung
04-16-2016, 08:39 AM
Call the papers. Alert the media. You have your doubts.

The sad thing is that you were not raised to question. You were raised to believe what you are told to believe by people who don't want to understand. You just pretend it's questioning.


Because it seems there is always some ironic perversity in the way humans and nature occur, Hollywood tells us that though the catastrophe will be immense and devastating, it will never be so severe that it would really, literally kill off everybody, and so there will always be a cohort of survivors who got lucky enough, through hard work and family values, to wind up wherever the oasis of survivability occurs. A big gene pool cleansing, getting rid of all the dead weight, the weak the lame, the poor and panty-waist liberals, leaving only the very cream of humanity, and other species, the elite, who will found a new world order based on free markets ...

I figured another exercise in futility, (ya can't make people be smart), and it is- but there are some gems mixed in with the detritus!

David G
04-16-2016, 11:30 AM
But... geng's graph has Lovely Plumage, eh?

Chip-skiff
04-16-2016, 11:47 AM
Lady Bracknell: “I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone."

—The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01996/Oscar-Wilde_1996173b.jpg