Sea level rise is no longer a threat, Antarctica and Greenland GAINING ice.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Second of all, MANY climate scientists disagree with the claim that they are 95% certain that mankind causes/caused Climate Change.

What is that number?

Because MANY of climate scientist agree with it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
....
As it is, the Earth started warming in the 1600s, which is over 300 years after the height of the industrial revolution.
...

I made a mistake last night. The above should read before the height of the industrial revolution...

originally posted by: Sremmos80

What is that number?

Because MANY of climate scientist agree with it.

43% agree with the claim that "we are 95% sure that manmade CO2 is the main dominant driver of climate change".

joannenova.com.au...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you seem to be saying that every scientist that supports AGW is either wrong or a criminal? You're not willing to look at what they're saying? Interesting.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you seem to be saying that every scientist that supports AGW is either wrong or a criminal? You're not willing to look at what they're saying? Interesting.

How about this... Show me in your own words how they are right... Start with that...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



So the 95% might be high but more seem to think it is at least 50%

1222 think it is at least over 50% an 227 think it is less.
www.pbl.nl...

Look at the thoughts of those that have more publications as well, publications are huge in the community.
Can't grab it off the PDF or I would.
Which I know your source addresses, but sorry you can't just claim people are being silenced and that is the reason they are not getting published.

Where do you see them getting that 43 btw?

The global warming movement was scaring developers from building more high exposure housing in hurricane prone coastal zones and discouraging carbon footprint.

I wonder what the environmentalists will use as an excuse for environmental reform now?

Years ago I did hurricane modeling for an insurance company, the short term profit motive outweighed forecasting decisions.

Expensive wars have been fought for less important goals.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you seem to be saying that every scientist that supports AGW is either wrong or a criminal? You're not willing to look at what they're saying? Interesting.

How about this... Show me in your own words how they are right... Start with that...

There's a difference between being informed and knowing what's going on...being educated, well read and aware and being an expert. I'm not a scientist, so I listen to them. I'm not a doctor either, but I listen to them. Perhaps you are a scientist but I run a business a family and have several other real life things going on to conduct my own research.

I'll put it this way: I can't actually go to the moon to see if we landed there so I have to listen and believe the scientists and the data they've presented to me. I have to believe NASA. You may say that I'm being a sheep for believing NASA in that we went to the moon but I have to ask you where do you draw the line?

Anyways...here's one reason that I'm convinced that we have "Man Made Global Warming" Or "AGW"

IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted. Keep in mind that the findings of this report...it was just a report. They actually accumulated DATA for scientists all over the world.

Several Scientific organizations that I think are reputable have endorsed this like:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

and the following organizations have come to the same conclusion as the TAR report. Not sure if I'm calling it the right name but the following...

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Reading stuff from these guys and believing or agreeing with their scientific methodology seems pretty smart and okay to me?

No?

a reply to: amazing

This is the exact wording on the paper that is used as the source for the 97% consensus of AGW.

Abstract
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.

32.6% of papers discussing Climate Change or Global Warming concluded positive with AGW. This was published in 2013 which would be in the primetime for cash strapped scientists to try to hop on the AGW money train. This easily explains how the independent author John Cook ends up with a lower estimate than the scientists themselves who when asked about their research in 2013 (as opposed to whenever they conducted the research up to 24 years ago) claim that some 46% of papers without a position are now indeed claiming to support AGW.

originally posted by: Nodrak
a reply to: amazing

This is the exact wording on the paper that is used as the source for the 97% consensus of AGW.

Abstract
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.

32.6% of papers discussing Climate Change or Global Warming concluded positive with AGW. This was published in 2013 which would be in the primetime for cash strapped scientists to try to hop on the AGW money train. This easily explains how the independent author John Cook ends up with a lower estimate than the scientists themselves who when asked about their research in 2013 (as opposed to whenever they conducted the research up to 24 years ago) claim that some 46% of papers without a position are now indeed claiming to support AGW.

But your quote said "...the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research..." And you only talked about one guy...John Cook. One guy is a small drop in the bucket when discussing Man Made Global Warming and Climate Change.

And coincidentally...Now is "Primetime for Cash Strapped Scientists to try to hope on the AGW denial gravy train" These scientists get hundreds of millions of dollars from Fossil Fuel companies.

a reply to: amazing

Did you once again miss the fact that the report you got was redacted by policymakers?

Did you not understand from the mouth of IPCC scientists who participated in IPCC reports that the IPCC doesn't care about science?

Did you not understand that less, and less scientists are falling behind the "AGW bandwagon" and in fact there was never a true consensus?

This thread has nothing to do about the Moon... That's a completely different thread and I have never even posted about that conspiracy theory...

The AGW scientists have been caught lying, manipulating data, erasing raw temperature data, and in general doing anything and everything in their power to stop the truth from coming out.

Why is it that you don't trust the IPCC scientists who are real climate change experts and I have given some of their statements. In fact the statements from 47 IPCC scientists...

You don't have to spend hours, and hours, each day, researching. It is done slowly; and for crying out loud. You are spending time posting in a thread about a topic you don't even understand.

Has anyone actually read the article, apart from Relda and myself?

Is the sea level going to retreat?

So much for all the money I invested in ocean-front property. Ya-right.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: amazing

Did you once again miss the fact that the report you got was redacted by policymakers?

Did you not understand from the mouth of IPCC scientists who participated in IPCC reports that the IPCC doesn't care about science?

Did you not understand that less, and less scientists are falling behind the "AGW bandwagon" and in fact there was never a true consensus?

This thread has nothing to do about the Moon... That's a completely different thread and I have never even posted about that conspiracy theory...

The AGW scientists have been caught lying, manipulating data, erasing raw temperature data, and in general doing anything and everything in their power to stop the truth from coming out.

Why is it that you don't trust the IPCC scientists who are real climate change experts and I have given some of their statements. In fact the statements from 47 IPCC scientists...

You don't have to spend hours, and hours, each day, researching. It is done slowly; and for crying out loud. You are spending time posting in a thread about a topic you don't even understand.

Wow.. So much to cover in your reply.

I'm not talking so much about the IPCC report but the Science the report/reports are based on and the the scientists who have nothing to do with the IPCC, who's work the IPCC used to create the report.

You said AGW scientists have been caught lying but we know that Fossil fuel company backed scientists have been caught lying. I don't think you seem to understand that?

I use the moon to point out a hypocrisy. You're willing to believe NASA when they talk about the moon landings but not when they talk about the Climate. Why is that?

It would appear that you are spending hours on AGW/Climate threads when you don't seem to understand anything about Climate change. Yes?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: mbkennel
What do you believe could disrupt the ocean currents a major amount?

In the Milankovitch cycles, the current theories look at ice in northern latitude oceans. The orbital changes alter the depth of summer & winter---with changing ice dynamics, you have changes in ocean temperature and salinity, and that interacts with internal oscillations and natural currents.

originally posted by: flyandi
Let's assume for one moment that Global Warming is 100% man-made ..

I don't think it will have any consequences on current and future life. Everything within Global Warming are assumptions including changed weather patterns. None have hard evidence - only assumed links.

www.weather.com...

nca2014.globalchange.gov...

I said it before and will repeat myself. The Earth has seen much warmer conditions over longer periods without significant damage on life including human.

Even if Global Warming is real .. what's the problem?

The change is far faster than ever seen in geological history. And there has never been this level of CO2 in atmosphere during the entire time that homo sapiens has evolved, much less significant human civilization.

The change is far too rapid and the demands of 8 billion people on the land and biosphere is far larger than before. You can't just say, 'hey the tribe will just go a little north'---there are already people in every single reasonably habitable region.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: amazing

Did you once again miss the fact that the report you got was redacted by policymakers?

Did you not understand from the mouth of IPCC scientists who participated in IPCC reports that the IPCC doesn't care about science?

That's false. The criticisms however are usually that IPCC reports are too conservative on account of political pressure from governments to tone down the conclusions. I've heard this first-hand by somebody who participated in it that he experienced pressure to obfuscate graphs and axes from I think it was Saudi & Chinese flacks.

It's easy to read the reports---everything is based on published peer reviewed articles, and you can read those too.

Did you not understand that less, and less scientists are falling behind the "AGW bandwagon" and in fact there was never a true consensus?

That is completely and totally false. Among professionals, the consensus was pretty clear by about 1992. I personally asked some around that time after reading abstracts some talks at the AGU meeting (I had housemates in physical oceanography and geophysics). They said that the contrarians then were already considered 'cranks', and the evidence was strong.

I (and thousands of others) could probably make $250k a year from a shadowy 'think'-tank by twisting some scientism around and obfuscating peer-reviewed science as I'd understand it better than average people. It's far far easier and more lucrative. than competing for a position & grant in actual science. But 99.9% of us don't.

originally posted by: mbkennel

That's false. The criticisms however are usually that IPCC reports are too conservative on account of political pressure from governments to tone down the conclusions. I've heard this first-hand by somebody who participated in it that he experienced pressure to obfuscate graphs and axes from I think it was Saudi & Chinese flacks.
...

What is false is that "the IPCC reports are too conservative...

The majority of the GCMs are wrong, and these are the evidence used for the too conservative reports.


www.drroyspencer.com...

If the too conservative reports are based on GCM models which are wrong, then it is obvious the more exaggerated reports are even more flawed and wrong...

But that's the sort of response i would expect from the same person who claimed "CO2 residence time is for hundreds and thousands of years"...

Forgive me if I don't believe the rest of your claims made by the same person making such a claim about the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere...

That statement right there shows you don't know what you are talking about, so don't try to pass as a "scientist" or "someone in the know" because you are not such a person...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Roy Spencer is credible and NOAA is not according to you.

y

Does it ever get old posting false information over and over?