Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by kingwilly

CO2 is not C.

If you don't know we're talking about CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas you need to go back to school as this topic is clearly too cerebral for you.

Human beings have, through the burning of fossil fuels, increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began.

Do you deny this simple fact?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming.

one

^ That actually surprises me. I'd have thought with the millions of dollars that the Kock brothers are throwing to the denialist groups that there would be at least several dozen "scientists" on their payroll...

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
• "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
• "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
• "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interesting lists and statements by the organisations.

Anyone else feel trapped in a vortex of chilling misinformation lately?


(and the fact is, it's more than 97% now- closer to 99% last I heard...)

Concensus is a logical fallacy.

97% of the world’s climate scientists..................
the history of the claim here



ICECAP

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response - just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming - quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen - I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus - almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming - so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it - almost - in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made,75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?

[email protected]. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.
See SPPI blog post here.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth

What nonsense, from an authoritative source - "Joes blog".

The influence of the sun is well known, nobody denies it.

Guess Blue missed the recent post updating the desktop research study to over 99% of climate scientists agreeing with a human origin for increased effects of climate change.

As for the twaddle above.

Discredited arguments refuted previously in this thread. Got anything new?

There are climate change deniers and there are man made climate change deniers please do not confuse the two. I have no feelings either way because I see people who bang on about climate change akin to those who scream about the lack of fuel on an aircraft that has already lost all its engines.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Guess Blue missed the recent post updating the desktop research study to over 99% of climate scientists agreeing with a human origin for increased effects of climate change.

As for the twaddle above.

Discredited arguments refuted previously in this thread. Got anything new?

''agreeing with a human origin'' ?
Are you shifting the goalposts again ? Co2 is supposed to be the bad guy , remember .
If you add deforestation , pollution etc then yes they have helped warm the planet , but are not the main driver by a long way .


What increased effects of climate change ?
We are a long way from the last ice age proper , and the Earth is steadily warming , however that warming has stalled over the last 17 years.

Originally Posted by blue

What increased effects of climate change ?

Try the loss of Antarctic ice.

“At the Pine Island Glacier we have seen that not only is more ice flowing from the glacier into the ocean, but it’s also flowing faster across the grounding line — the boundary between the grounded ice and the floating ice,” Dr. G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, a researcher on the project, told Planet Earth Magazine.

The glaciologists found that that glacier’s grounding line, which has already receded up to 10 kilometers this century, is “probably engaged in an unstable 40-kilometer retreat.”

Pine Island Glacier is one of the main avenues for ice to flow from Antarctica into the ocean. As the tip of the glacier melts and thins, the glacier is discharging more ice into the sea. The glacier has been losing about 20 billion tonnes of ice a year for the last two decades, but scientists see this rising to 100 billion tons a year in the coming decades.

Massive Antarctic Glacier Has Entered Irriversible Melt, Could Add Up To 1 Centimeter To Sea Level | ThinkProgress

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2094.html

Originally Posted by blue

We are a long way from the last ice age proper , and the Earth is steadily warming , however that warming has stalled over the last 17 years.

Discredited argument refuted previously in this thread.

Could add up..... not will.

Antartica is a huge continent, some ice loss in 1 or 2 areas does not translate to the entire continent melting away.

2013 second warmest year on record for New Zealand region

Monday, 6 January 2014, 10:01 am
Press Release: Jim Salinger
MONDAY 6 JANUARY 2014

Data collected from New Zealand climate stations and analyzed by author of Living in a Warmer World, climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger show that 2013 was the 2nd warmest year on record for the New Zealand region.

• Winter 2013 was the warmest on record nationally;
• Overall, 2013 was the New Zealand region’s 2nd warmest year on record: annual regional New Zealand mean temperature was +0.84 °C above average, following 1998 at +0.89 °C above average;
• Record annual mean temperatures were recorded in the south east of the South Island;
• This follows on from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s annual statement that shows 2013 was Australia's warmest year on record;
• Above average annual mean temperatures are anticipated to continue in the New Zealand region for 2014.
2013 second warmest year on record for New Zealand region | Scoop News

Originally Posted by ENT

2013 second warmest year on record for New Zealand region

Actually it's the 3rd warmest.
2013 NZ's third warmest year on record - National News | TVNZ

Hell if I could find what the 1st and 2nd hottest were though. I guess that info is irrelevant.

It was 1998, 0.89 C above average, reportedly.

Originally Posted by ENT

It was 1998, 0.89 C above average, reportedly.

Thank you. I couldn't find it.

from that link in 1517
''Overall, 2013 was the third-warmest on record for New Zealand, based on NIWA's records from seven stations which began in 1909.''

1919 ? that not very long ago is it ?
how many weather stations were there in 1909 ?
only 7 , wouldn't they be on the edge of towns , areas that
have now been swallowed by urbanisation , and thus heat .

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Anyone else feel trapped in a vortex of chilling misinformation lately?


(and the fact is, it's more than 97% now- closer to 99% last I heard...)

That's nice but where do these so-called 'climate scientists' get their funding?

That's right - go along to get along. It's a big money-making racket and the Pope of this all - Al Gore, is laughing all the way to the bank.

Is anyone on this forum willing to jump of the nearest bridge, sterilize their children and give up all the things they have become dependent on for the sake of our planet?

Or as always are you going to sit there and preach about it.

I'd like to see the air-miles and carbon footprint of the man man global warming supporters at teakdoor.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

That's nice but where do these so-called 'climate scientists' get their funding?

Why don't you tell me?