Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

Anderegg 2010

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

 

[jem]

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

Note... that second part...

The cook consensus was on based on about a third of the papers... Cook exclucded 2/3 as not being taking a position.

So in the end at most it could be is that 97% of 1/3 of the papers.

your numbers are all screwed up




http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9


Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

 

[piezoe]

s

Quote from stu:

Well, Salby being no fool as you suggest, surely intended his video and the talk he gives in it to be representative of his work and his paper, seeing they are all about the same subject. By the way, a paper which, as far as I am aware, is still not and appears unlikely to be published.

Salby is fundamentally proposing something that has not withstood the scrutiny of science when it has been previously suggested. Namely that the rise in atmospheric co2 is not anthropogenic but caused by temperature.

Salby does not basically refute any of the established scientific data. But rather than establish any hard scientific evidence of his own, when it suits he hand waves known science away, as he does calling "proxy" the existing extensive scientific data , observations and factual measurements around co2 in ice core samples.

Glaciologists are obliged to scientifically analyze and then explain co2 diffusion in solution if required and solid state with extensive detailed research data. Not just dismiss it all away as proxy. Salby does. In that instance alone he's basing a proposal by ignoring not refuting or improving scientific evidence. ................

The detail he does give has not stood scrutiny and is knocked down all over the place.
But currently there is a good marketplace for AGW skepticism, something of which Salby being no shrinking violet will be well aware.

Stu, my impression is that his use of the term "proxy" is in line with its accepted meaning, and it is not at all used by him as a dismissive term, so much as a reminder to be cautious. That is to say, the concentration of CO2 in ice is not a direct measurement of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere when the ice formed, but a "proxy" or stand-in for that measurement. As another example of the use of the term "proxy," the growth rings of bristlecone pine at the treeline, ~11,000-12,000 feet, have been used as a proxy for temperature over the past 3700 years. (Not a very long period when compared to the oldest age of the ice core samples.) There are no direct measurements of temperature that far back; the bristlecone growth is being used as a "proxy".

It doesn't take a scientific background to understand that when one is using a proxy for something one can't measure directly, the opportunity for error increases. I think Salby has used this term quite correctly. He himself is using the ice core data as a "proxy" for past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but he maintains that if one properly corrects the core data for CO2 diffusion, that past atmospheric concentration were much higher then is commonly accepted.

I wouldn't agree that you won't see his paper in print. I am quite certain you will, but we'll all need to be patient. Whenever you try to publish something that challenges conventional thinking, it is going to be difficult, but with persistence, it will be published. Unless, of course, a reviewer can find what he considers to be a fatal flaw, and Salby can't rebut to the satisfaction of the editors. The papers that are hard to get published in peer reviewed journals, but eventually appear, are, I would say, invariably the most interesting, and make the most important contributions.

I will tell you a story about getting something published that breaks sharply with convention. M.J.S. Dewar once published a paper entitled "Why Life Exists." (one of his best papers!) Without going into technical detail, I will tell you that the paper deals with the activation barrier for reactions on carbon atoms, and Dewar showed that these barriers, on saturated carbon, were the result of carbon's small size. That wasn't particularly ground breaking, and that wasn't what made the paper so difficult to get published, nor was its the peculiarly Dewaresque title. Instead, it was Dewar's empirical calculations indicating that reactions on unsaturated carbon should take place exothermically without an activation barrier. But they don't, so Dewar concluded the observed barrier to these reactions in solution was due entirely to desolvation, i.e., the energy needed to move the solvent away from the reactant. In Dewar's own words, "This idea so shocked referees of our manuscript, when we sent it to 'Journal of the American Chemical Society', that we eventually had to publish it elsewhere." (That elsewhere was 'Organometallics, 1982, 1, 1705.) Three and four years later, Dewar was shown to be correct by two independent ab initio calculations.

There are literally hundreds of the best papers in science that ran into great difficulties with referees. In fact, it is the rule rather than the exception, that the best papers, the one's that challenge conventional thinking, are difficult to get published. So we should recognize that if it should take Salby a long time to publish the work is Hamburg talk was based on -- that is a sign that the paper may be very significant. On the other hand if it never comes out, and is buried, well we know what that most likely is telling us!

 

[Lucrum]

Left-wing proposals to stop climate change are often ridiculous and extreme, but Huffington Post contributor Lance Hosey’s “modest” proposal was downright laughable.

Hosey, an architect and chief sustainability officer, decried the impact that building construction has on carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. In order to limit such pollution, on Nov. 14 Hosey advocated a nationwide moratorium on new buildings for “a few years.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2l1C0zFaV

 

[jem]

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

Well there goes the warming is causing the ice to melt theory...




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...lometer-of-ice-in-west-antarctica/#more-97619
...

Will the new volcano erupt?

“Definitely,” Lough says. “In fact because of the radar shows a mountain beneath the ice I think it has erupted in the past, before the rumblings we recorded.

Will the eruptions punch through a kilometer or more of ice above it?

The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that released a thousand times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano.

On the other hand a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice—many lakes full,” says Wiens. This water will rush beneath the ice towards the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.

By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.

“We weren’t expecting to find anything like this,” Wiens says

###
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Polar Programs.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

Well there goes the warming is causing the ice to melt theory...




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...lometer-of-ice-in-west-antarctica/#more-97619
...

Will the new volcano erupt?

“Definitely,” Lough says. “In fact because of the radar shows a mountain beneath the ice I think it has erupted in the past, before the rumblings we recorded.

Will the eruptions punch through a kilometer or more of ice above it?

The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that released a thousand times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano.

On the other hand a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice—many lakes full,” says Wiens. This water will rush beneath the ice towards the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.

By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.

“We weren’t expecting to find anything like this,” Wiens says

###
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Polar Programs.

I read somewhere awhile back that a single volcanic eruption, Iceland I think it was. Had obliterated all the carbon reduction gains of the entire European Union up to that date.

IOW they're effectively pissing on a forest fire.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from piezoe:

s
Stu, my impression is that his use of the term "proxy" is in line with its accepted meaning, and it is not at all used by him as a dismissive term, so much as a reminder to be cautious. That is to say, the concentration of CO2 in ice is not a direct measurement of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere when the ice formed, but a "proxy" or stand-in for that measurement. As another example of the use of the term "proxy," the growth rings of bristlecone pine at the treeline, ~11,000-12,000 feet, have been used as a proxy for temperature over the past 3700 years. (Not a very long period when compared to the oldest age of the ice core samples.) There are no direct measurements of temperature that far back; the bristlecone growth is being used as a "proxy".

It doesn't take a scientific background to understand that when one is using a proxy for something one can't measure directly, the opportunity for error increases. I think Salby has used this term quite correctly. He himself is using the ice core data as a "proxy" for past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but he maintains that if one properly corrects the core data for CO2 diffusion, that past atmospheric concentration were much higher then is commonly accepted.

I wouldn't agree that you won't see his paper in print. I am quite certain you will, but we'll all need to be patient. Whenever you try to publish something that challenges conventional thinking, it is going to be difficult, but with persistence, it will be published. Unless, of course, a reviewer can find what he considers to be a fatal flaw, and Salby can't rebut to the satisfaction of the editors. The papers that are hard to get published in peer reviewed journals, but eventually appear, are, I would say, invariably the most interesting, and make the most important contributions.

I will tell you a story about getting something published that breaks sharply with convention. M.J.S. Dewar once published a paper entitled "Why Life Exists." (one of his best papers!) Without going into technical detail, I will tell you that the paper deals with the activation barrier for reactions on carbon atoms, and Dewar showed that these barriers, on saturated carbon, were the result of carbon's small size. That wasn't particularly ground breaking, and that wasn't what made the paper so difficult to get published, nor was its the peculiarly Dewaresque title. Instead, it was Dewar's empirical calculations indicating that reactions on unsaturated carbon should take place exothermically without an activation barrier. But they don't, so Dewar concluded the observed barrier to these reactions in solution was due entirely to desolvation, i.e., the energy needed to move the solvent away from the reactant. In Dewar's own words, "This idea so shocked referees of our manuscript, when we sent it to 'Journal of the American Chemical Society', that we eventually had to publish it elsewhere." (That elsewhere was 'Organometallics, 1982, 1, 1705.) Three and four years later, Dewar was shown to be correct by two independent ab initio calculations.

There are literally hundreds of the best papers in science that ran into great difficulties with referees. In fact, it is the rule rather than the exception, that the best papers, the one's that challenge conventional thinking, are difficult to get published. So we should recognize that if it should take Salby a long time to publish the work is Hamburg talk was based on -- that is a sign that the paper may be very significant. On the other hand if it never comes out, and is buried, well we know what that most likely is telling us!

But none of Salby's work, regardless of merit, changes the fact that CO2 levels have gone up some 40% over the last 200 years, concurrent with the industrial revolution and man's burning of FF's. A smooth line can drawn back via various proxies and they mesh right into the ice CO2 levels of more than 200 years ago.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

Well there goes the warming is causing the ice to melt theory...

I guess this doesn't matter then. LOL

 

[jem]

It also does not change the fact that historically change in the level of co2 trails change in the level of temps.

It does not change the fact that CO2 acts as a thermostat in our atmosphere.

It does not change the fact that NASA is currently unsure if adding more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere creates more warming or cooling...

for instance... here is the info from NASA on the largest greenhouse gas....


http://climatekids.nasa.gov/nasa-research/

Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.

Cloud effects on Earth's radiation. Diagram shows how clouds reflect some of the Sun's energy back to space.

Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Quote from futurecurrents:

But none of Salby's work, regardless of merit, changes the fact that CO2 levels have gone up some 40% over the last 200 years concurrent with the industrial revolution and man's burning of FF's.

 

[jem]

your guess could be correct... because your chart shows there has been no warming the last 17 years....

Quote from futurecurrents:

I guess this doesn't then. LOL