Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Next
Comments 39601 to 39650:
-
Vonnegut at 05:28 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@292 would you believe the theory of gravity if only 10% of scientists studying gravity agreed with it?
-
Vonnegut at 05:22 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@291
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution.
Im not saying it doesnt reflect the science Im saying it doesnt reflect all climate scientists views.
You seem to be convinced that all climate scientists would say man was the cause but many havent had an opportunity to have any input either way.
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And how many of those 30,000 would it take to convince you, Vonnegut? If 29,000 responded, and 97% of those agreed with the IPCC assessment? 20,000? 15,000?
-
DSL at 05:15 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What Rob says, Vonnegut.
The consensus studies--those that are simple opinion surveys (not Cook et al.)--are performed in part to counter the idea that no consensus exists. That idea is spread by people who have not read the work on attribution. I've directly confronted at least 150 people who have made that "no consensus" claim publicly. Not one attempted to defend their claims with science. Not one. Yes, they did say things like "It's volcanoes" or "It's the sun," but they couldn't provide a single reference. Many provided links to "sciencey" blogs like WUWT, blogs designed (and paid) to sway public opinion rather than advance the science.
So the consensus studies may be "mularky" as far as their use as actual evidence for anthropogenic global warming goes, but they do serve a role in communicating the science to those members of the general public who have not the time, energy, training, means, and/or motivation to engage the actual science.
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution. You'll find that the IPCC conclusions are actually conservative: humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming since 1950.
Without engaging the science, it's easy to stand back and be incredulous. Guffaw to your heart's content, but if you want to be right, you'll need to actually stick your head in paper or two. I think you'll find people here more than willing to be open minded about the science if you're actually discussing the science.
-
Vonnegut at 05:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Rob why do you keep mentioning 97% it only has relevence if you know how many people is involves. 'Your' 97% doesnt mean 97% of climate scientists does it? I believe there are 30,000 scientists involved in the climate field.
-
airscottdenning at 05:10 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Here's another "proof" that's very simple: weknow the greenhouse effect is there because we can survive at night!
If the ground temperature at sundown in summer is 60 F (about 15 C or 288 Kelvin), then by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law it is emitting sigma * T^4 = 6.67e-8 * (288)^4 = 390 Watts per square meter. If this cooling were felt through a 10 cm thick layer of soil, the ground temperature would cool by 75 Kelvin over 8 hours of darkness, reaching -60 C (-78 F) by morning.
Luckily for us CO2 and water vapor molecules in the air emit infrared radiation downward at over 300 Watts per square meter, so we can survive night on Earth!
To be fair, only the really wacky fringe actually deny that CO2 emits heat. But I have actually met a few, and of course the original post links to some of these claims.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:56 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... Hypothetical situation: Your friend goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer. He's referred to an oncologist. The oncologist says, "Here is the treatment I recommend. This treatment is what is recommended by 97% of practising oncologists."
Doctors regularly recommend treatments that are based on the consensus of the current research. No vote is taken. Some researchers even disagree on the treatment they would recommend. But based on a thorough reading of the existing research, there is a "consensus position" on how treatment should be approached.
Does that mean the 97% is "mullarky (sic)?"
If you take the time to read a sampling of the existing research, you will find that nearly all the published research agrees that humans are the primary cause of the warming of the past ~50 years.
It's just a fact.
-
Rob Painting at 04:55 AM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Read the paper linked to in the comment.
-
Vonnegut at 04:42 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts.
And you dont think they think the same with this 97% mullarky?
-
Dan Olner at 03:50 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Given that, as already said, it's rather difficult to write anything that will convince a skeptic, I keep on mulling whether it's possible to build some sort of `greenhouse room' that could be used in science museums to illustrate the effect. Can someone actually able to do the science sums tell me if this is nonsense? I have a feeling you'd need lots of other factors like cold enough co2...
Would it be possible to have: (a) the bottom half of a 20 foot high ceiling room open to people via a door (with air controls, see below); (b) the top half a sealed container with two separate compartments, one containing the same air mix as the room itself, the other pure co2? Each part could be moved over the room, hiding the other, with some powerful light source above it. The floor of the room could be something that's reflecting back more of the IR. (You'd also need to carefully define the in-out flow of air to the room itself so you're not suffocating people while also allowing for a predictable change in temps as the IR bouncing back heats things up).
What would it take for that to show a measurable effect? Given I don't much know what I'm talking about, are there are other similar room setups that might allow people to directly experience the effect of a CO2 blanket on the air temp of the room they're in? (If I were being cruel, I'd quite like one where skeptics who claim no such effect exist could be put in one where the temp could be raised to 60C this way...)
Of course, I suppose if you build such a thing, skeptics would simply say "the atmosphere's completely different, don't be silly". As a general rule, though, it'd be targetting sensible waverers to innoculate them against FUD, not skeptics themselves, who are beyond our aid I suspect.
-
DSL at 03:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut: "Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?"
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts. It's a waste of time. How much research work has been done just to provide a response to the fake skepticism generated by the highly successful rhetorical project of the Heartland Institute, SPPI, GWPF, CA, WUWT, FoS, and other opinion-shaping organizations? Too much.
If you want a summary of the science, go to the summary of the science: IPCC AR5 WG1 -- composed by 300+ unpaid scientists, experts in their fields.
-
DSL at 03:06 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, you want a consensus and you don't accept the existing attempts to establish one. The best place to go to find a consensus is one which summarizes the existing science--not the existing opinion. The 5th IPCC Assessment Report does that. It references several thousand publications directly, and thousands more indirectly.
Have you read the attribution studies that form the basis of the claim that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years is human-sourced? Do you understand that anyone who provided a response for the Cook et al. study--and other "consensus" studies--was not required to have read the existing literature on attribution? Nor was anyone required to give evidence for their answers. The ~3% may not have read a single attribution study. Are you willing to blindly trust that ~3%? Or are you trying to point out that a consensus study has limitations?
If so, then duh. That's why you go to the science itself. If you don't understand the science, then you're at the mercy of opinion-makers. If you have no basis for trusting or mistrusting the 3% or the 97% or whatever %, then how is it that you are able to generate a dismissive attitude?If you do have science-based reasons for doubting the clear consensus of evidence (represented in IPCC AR5), then bring it (to the appropriate thread). If you can't, then at least have the integrity to recognize that you can't.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:55 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut @283...
You're making a really common error about the project. The Concensus Project was not about the opinions of scientists, it was a project researching the positions of research papers (or their abstracts).
TCP is saying that 97% of published research agrees with AGW. It's not making a claim about the opinions of the researchers.
It's an important distinction.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I would add here, TCP asking researchers to self-rate their papers was an act in self skepticism. We went though and rated these 12,000 papers but who was to say that we were not biased in our ratings? We asked ourselves that question (unlike Vonnegut here). So, to test that, we asked for self-ratings.
What would have happened if the self-ratings had been significantly different that the TCP ratings? I have to admit, I was a little nervous about that potential outcome. We would have had to report that finding. If we had found 97% in our ratings and then found a figure significantly lower with self-ratings... that would have been an existential crisis for SkS.
While it wasn't an unexpected result that our ratings agreed with researchers' self-fatings, it was certainly a confirmation that we were doing things right.
-
Vonnegut at 02:46 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@280 its not for me to do anything, I was highlighting what others say about the 97% looking fishy.
Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?
It 'looks' like the elephants have just been asked if they would like a bunshop closer to the zoo.
-
Composer99 at 02:44 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What you may not understand is, the response rate of 15% is a huge number. Most voter polls are considered robust when they have far below a 1% response rate of registered voters.
Indeed, I seem to recall Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog used aggregates of such polls to very accurately predict the outcomes of a majority of US elections (including the Presidential election and several Congressional elections) in the fall of 2012.
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut - "...who am I to argue with it?"
You appear to be someone who strongly dislikes the conclusion of this and similar surveys - that those who spend time studying the subject find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming to be convincing. Unfortunately, wishing otherwise doesn't make it so - and neither does recycling arguments repeatedly demonstrated to be erroneous in this and other discussions. See the previous 280 comments...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:29 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... What you may not understand is, the response rate of 15% is a huge number. Most voter polls are considered robust when they have far below a 1% response rate of registered voters.
I'd venture to guess you're not really interested in the truth here. If you were, though, you could easily just try to test the results yourself. Pull up your own list of published research. Rate the abstracts. Tally them up. See what your results are. You certainly don't need to do 12,000 of them to get a statistically significant sampling. A few hundred papers should more than adequately prove the results.
-
Vonnegut at 02:00 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Youve got your much misquoted headline figure who am I to argue with it?
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut - Papers on aerodynamics don't restate the density of air in every publication. Nor do astrophysicists rederive the inverse square rule of gravity on a daily basis, nor articles on dentistry recapitulate tooth decay in every journal.
As was stated in a recent court case, “This is how science works. The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” No need to reinvent the wheel.
97% of those abstracts and those surveyed scientists who expressed an opinion agree with the basic principles of AGW, and that we are the cause of most of the recent warming. Perhaps 3% argue to the contrary. If you wish to support for your (obvious) disagreement with the generally understood anthropogenic basis of climate change, then you would need a lot more material than those 3% have supplied.
-
Vonnegut at 01:45 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@274 you asked 8500 authors and 1200 scientists responded? , just 15% responded? and of those 15%, 97% supported AGW.
Ok thas clear now. 1164 supported AGW and what about the rest the 6300 ?
-
CBDunkerson at 01:39 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Michael Sweet wrote: "The data to support the 97% number is overwhelming."
Though it is interesting to note how the result changes over time. For example, the OP gets 97% from a study of papers written 1991 to 2011. The separate study I linked covered November 2012 through December 2013 and found 99.9% agreement. On the other hand, if you go back to Arrhenius in 1896 then AGW was almost universally rejected.
It seems likely that there has been a fairly smooth progression of climate scientist views from near 100% rejection in 1896 to near 100% acceptance in 2013 as the evidence has piled up. Public understanding is another matter entirely, because too many consider the latest weather report valid evidence upon which to base their views.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:21 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut says: "I realise I wont get the answer im looking for here"
...reminds me of Doctor Who takling with the Tardis, in the episode "The Doctor's Wife":
The Doctor: You know, since we're talking with mouths—not really an opportunity that comes along very often—I just want to say, you know you have never been very reliable.
Idris: And you have?
The Doctor: You didn't always take me where I wanted to go.
Idris: No, but I always took you where you needed to go.
The Doctor: You did.
Although Vonnegut is accusing scientist of only wanting to accept information that backs up their theories, it seems pretty clear that Vonnegut is the one that has preconceived notions of what constitutes an acceptable answer.
-
michael sweet at 01:16 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
vonnegut,
The simple numbers you ask for are clearly specified in the OP. If you have no interest in learning why are you so angy about the answers you are given?
The OP states:
"As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings."
1200 scientists gave self ratings. About 97% of the self ratings were supportative of AGW theory. Just because you are not interested in reading the data does not mean that everyone else does not read the OP.
The data to support the 97% number is overwhelming. Your complaining about this number indicates that you are not interested in the data and are only trying to score political points..
-
Vonnegut at 00:57 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Just simple numbers is all I ask how many scientists were asked and how many said yes how many said no. 97% is a meaningless number if the truth isnt told. How many times is it misquoted as 97% of all scientists agree. It looks like its been dont to generate a headline, yes it did that but it still looks disingenuous.
Perhaps if you wanted the truth you would have been better to poll all scientists, you know all those who believe in gravity?
-
DSL at 00:49 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, can you list the critical/essential papers not referenced directly or indirectly (1-2 levels) in IPCC AR5 WG1?
Your statement is odd. You claim to want an "answer," but you do not accept the answer given. You then claim that SkS is unscientific. You either know the answer you want to hear (but refuse to provide evidence for such an answer), or you never did want to hear the answer. Not very skeptical of you. Kurt is rolling in his grave.
-
mgardner at 00:36 AM on 4 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
Rob Painting (and others who responded).
After my comment @7, I did an eye-watering search of images to be sure I wasn't missing the obvious-- no luck, so let me elaborate on what I'm looking for.
The myth about 'trapped' or 'excluded' heat energy in the ocean relies on confusing people about the most basic facts and physics principles.
What I would like to see is a series of illustrations or animation that emphasize
1) That what is being transported is water at some temperature T1(not 'heat')
2) That when it is mechanically forced by your gyres to a lower stratum, which is above water at T3, it displaces the water at that stratum upward, which is at some T2, <T1 but >T3.
3) That this is a continuous process, so we are really seeing a vertical circulation, where the original surface water is going to reach an equilibrium T2a (dependent on turbulence), but which is >T2, and it will eventuall be diplaced upwards as well.
Now, that's my non-specialist understanding, which I'm happy to have corrected in the main (I know it's simplistic). But for this (and other) mechanisms, for the hypothetical naive but open-minded reader, a clear picture should do a much better job than all my words.
The problem is, all the pictures I can find tend to support the mythological position; in attempting to portray the various vertical changes in a single, static, image, they create this illusion that the temperature changes but the water remains in place. Hence my reference to "caloric theory"-- that's what the pictures remind me of.
-
Tom Dayton at 00:30 AM on 4 February 2014Climate's changed before
Vonnegut, of course my answer was only about the really short term in versus out of CO2 from the oceans. Over longer periods, other processes remove "CO2" (really, the chemical byproducts of CO2) from the ocean into sediments. That is covered by the OA is Not OK series, and also by other posts such as the place of that process in the even longer period cycling through the crust--explained in "Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink."
-
Composer99 at 00:27 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
The atmospheric greenhouse effect has been confirmed in theory, experiment, and empirical measurement for a century and a half. Why should every climate scientist, down to the present day, try to disprove it? Why waste time in their short careers trying to publish a "we tried to disprove the greenhouse effect and failed again" paper?
Methinks, Vonnegut, you are setting up an impossible expectation for rhetorical, rather than scientific, purposes.
-
Vonnegut at 00:13 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I thought as a scientists youre supposed to start out to dispove a theory, not decide the result then find the papers to back up your theory.
I realise I wont get the answer im looking for here
-
Vonnegut at 00:06 AM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The pic below is of a pteropod (sea butterfly) captured from waters around Antarctica recently:
I dont see a ph reading do you happen to know how alkaline the water was where this pterapod was collected??
-
MarkR at 23:58 PM on 3 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Damn it bjchip, I'm a scientist not a linguist. Thanks for the catch, correction made.
There have been so many articles devoted to explaining the greenhouse effect. What I hoped to get across here was how thsoe who don't like it have completely failed to present any explanation for the spectral measurements. Aside from denying that these measurements exist or are possible.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:43 PM on 3 February 2014Climate's changed before
Vonnegut: Not necessarily. Oceans always release CO2 and absorb CO2--both processes. Oceans are able to hold less CO2 the warmer they are. Whether the net effect is more CO2 in than out depends not only on the temperature but on the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2--how much CO2 is in the air.
-
Vonnegut at 23:17 PM on 3 February 2014Climate's changed before
So If I understand this correctly, Co2 is released from the oceans with extra heat so the oceans will become more alkaline, or more acid if it gets colder and more co2 is dissolved in the oceans?
-
bjchip at 23:14 PM on 3 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
"it has been attached using loads of"
perhaps "attacked" ???
-
CBDunkerson at 22:26 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Sorry, messed up the link;
-
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut wrote: "Will there ever be a basic break down of how many climate scientists actually disagree and how many actually agree and the total climate scientists involved in proving AGW true or false?"
Sure. That's been done for various years. See here for the most recent.
-
MA Rodger at 22:10 PM on 3 February 2014Climate's changed before
Vonnegut @395.
Question 21 on the web page you link to doesn't provide the best answer in the world but the whole exercise is trying to be attractive to kids at the same time as keeping to the straight and narrow. (Thus Question 4. Do people farts contribute to climate change, too?) And it does fail to answer some questions it poses (eg Question 7) despite answers being readily presentable.
Question 21 is in error by failing to differentiate between CO2 uptake into the oceans (which is mainly a temperature thing) and the transfer of that CO2 into the deep oceans (which is better understood than is suggested by the question). But this isn't the sort of detail you would expect to throw at kids. I see no case for classing it as "misinformation".
BTW, thank you for the demonstration of how my cold oceans question works with deniers.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:09 PM on 3 February 2014Climate's changed before
Vonnegut, I'm not sure why you would think that might be "misinformation". The only part I'd question is, "How and why CO2 gets stored and released from the deep oceans is something scientists are still working on." It is well established that colder water absorbs more CO2. I suspect what they are questioning is how the CO2 then gets mixed into the deep ocean, but I'd think that would happen inevitably happen over time... leaving the relevant mechanism just the warming and cooling of the water itself.
-
Vonnegut at 21:04 PM on 3 February 2014Climate's changed before
This for me highlights one major problem for sceptics and parents
As the planet cools into an ice age, CO2 is transported to the deep oceans, helping to cool the planet. As the planet again warms at the end of an ice age, this CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere, helping the warming process along. How and why CO2 gets stored and released from the deep oceans is something scientists are still working on. Increased wind, driving more ocean circulation and changes in marine algae that take in CO2 may be parts of the process.
Does this class as misinformation?
-
Tom Curtis at 18:37 PM on 3 February 2014Models are unreliable
Vonnegut @666:
1) Antarctica does not have a simple climate, not even in relative terms.
2) Quoting a 2004 interview and assuming comments made regarding models in 2004 are relevant now represents a specious argument. If you cannot find a relevant modern quote, your Find a relevant modern quote or your questions are without basis.
-
Vonnegut at 18:11 PM on 3 February 2014Models are unreliable
Thank you @665 Tom
Global climate computer model predictions of how the Antarctic climate may change over the next 100 years differ in detail from model to model. Most models, however, indicate relatively modest temperature increases around Antarctica over the next 50 years. Over this time period, the models predict increased snowfall over Antarctica, which should more than compensate for increased melting of Antarctic ice. However, many natural processes occurring in the Antarctic are not well represented in present climate models and further research is needed to improve our confidence in these predictions
I just find it odd that being a simple climate in relative terms that its not easier to model.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 18:07 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut @ 266
- No, I meant what I wrote, not what you wish I had written.
- There will always be people with different views and that is a precious part of the scientific milieu. A few of the 3% may be committed to denial before reason (just as a few of the 'pro-' crowd might be swayed by ideology), but the majority would arrive at their positions through reasonable, logical extrapolation from the results of their experiments and research. Only those who have the facts before them and yet deny their meaning (or even their existence) deserve to be in the rogues gallery, as you put it. The number of papers contradicting the AGW theory, published in expert, peer-reviewed journals is vanishingly small. If you disagree with this, where is your supporting research?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:54 PM on 3 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Like Andrew Mclaren, I am not a scientist (poet here ...), but I agree that this is a useful article to be able to link to. Sadly, the committed denialospheroids will dismiss it as just more spin and claim it has been 'widely discredited' (though so far they have been curiously unable to point to the scientific papers discrediting anything about which they make this claim). Neverthless, I will gladly add this arrow to my quiver of links to post in rebuttal of denialist comments on other sites I haunt, such as The Conversation, on the basis that any ambivalent people reading such a thread of comments need to be pointed to reliable information, to counter the ridiculous denialospheroid claims.
-
Vonnegut at 17:50 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@265 Doug you mean "Do you think that climate sciensts working out the perturbed changes in the climate have been affected by man"
SKS assumes every climate scientist knows mankind is to blame, That being the case what of the 3% who dont? are they in the rogues gallery too?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:25 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut @ 264, do you think astroscientists working out the perturbed orbits of planets around the sun explicity affirm the theory of gravity in every paper they publish, or do you think in their field the phenomenon of gravity is so well understood that it needs no explicit restatement? Whatever your answer, you can apply the same reasoning to the question of climate scientists and the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
-
Vonnegut at 16:38 PM on 3 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious.
quote from text in article above.
Do you think perhaps you let emotion and assumtion get in the way of a valid assessment?
Will there ever be a basic break down of how many climate scientists actually disagree and how many actually agree and the total climate scientists involved in proving AGW true or false?
-
Andrew Mclaren at 16:38 PM on 3 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Great to see some clear evidence that answers the common 'skeptic' demand for empirical evidence of enhanced greenhouse warming. Though I am not myself a climate scientist (artist here, heh heh) I have been drawn into the arguments quite a bit in media commentary, and have cited the example of heat-seeking missile technology a number of times. Suppose I should get some proper references for the actual work in that field (maybe some of it is classified info, not sure) but it is fairly well known that the early development of such technology had to work out instrumental errors due to the heat masking properties of CO2 and other GHGs, and to re-calibrate such guidance systems in order to make them work properly.
I can never resist the zinger which most effectively closes this Q.E.D. response to the 'no greenhouse effect' claims: should these folks find themselves up in the air with a heat-seeking missile on their tail, they can bet their flaming backsides, its aim is true!
-
Tom Curtis at 16:30 PM on 3 February 2014Models are unreliable
Daniel, for what it is worth, wikipedia's (and hence Vonnegut's) claim is based on the following statement by the BAS:
"Global climate model predictions of how the Antarctic climate may change over the next 100 years differ in detail from model to model. Most models, however, indicate relatively modest temperature rises around Antarctica over the next 50 years and, over this time period, increased snowfall over the continent should more than compensate for increased melting of Antarctic ice and will thus partially offset the rise in sea level resulting from thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of icecaps and glaciers elsewhere in the world. However, many processes occurring in the polar regions are not well represented in climate models at present and further research is needed to improve our confidence in these predictions. This is particularly true for predictions beyond 50 years, when Antarctica may start to warm enough to have a significant impact on the ice sheets."
The only problem is that the statement comes from a page that was taken down by the BAS sometime between Feb 7th, 2006 and June 7th, 2007. Ergo the statement precedes the IPCC AR4, let alone AR5.
The nearest recent equivalent (from the page you are currently redirected to) reads:
"Antarctica is a vast ice sheet, around the size of the USA, and it is not surprising that different areas are behaving differently. On the Antarctic Peninsula, where climate is warming rapidly, 87% of glaciers are retreating but the area is small and the contribution to sea-level rise, a few centimetres per century, is comparable to that from Alaskan glaciers. The East Antarctic ice sheet appears close to balance, although increased snowfall may cause this area to thicken slowly in future. In West Antarctica, there is an area roughly the size of Texas where the ice sheet is thinning rapidly — the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE). Close to the coast in ASE, thinning rates are more than 1 metre per year."
(Current to at least Jan 17, 2014)
Of course, that does not support Vonnegut's claim.
-
grindupBaker at 14:20 PM on 3 February 2014Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating
chriskoz #13 The tentative info I've found is that salt water freeze point at a pressure of, say, 4,000m depth is -15C (it's -1.9C at surface) so no freezing down there (someone please confirm that -15C number). Yes to the dynamic equilibrium sweet spot. It's an Oreo cookie with ice cream instead of fake cream. The balance temperature point depends on the ocean current flow rate of the below-zero water from the poles, as you say, the mixing rate from warm waters above (except at high latitudes) by way of mixing currents and octopi, and the average thermal conductivity of the Earth crust beneath down to the 5,000C zone (as from MA Rodger #9). I suggest taking the ocean thermocline shown by MA Rodger #9 and take it's 4,000m depth as the sea bed for illustrative example, then continue the thermocline down to the 5,000C zone based on that thermal conductivity of the Earth crust and if you get accurate data that will show you the heat flow from below (estimated at 0.08 wm**-2 globally geothermal heat, but not known precisely with much certainty). You can't deduce anything using heat conduction from warm waters above because you'll find it's so tiny that would take ~125,000 years to warm/cool the depths to same as surface following a surface MST anomaly if there were no currents bringing cold water through, so obviously the actual warming from waters above is 99%+ by fluid mixing.
Prev 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Next
