You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
As you must be aware from your experience with the bay, lack of legislation, or at least enforcement, can be harmful to the other guy as well.Quote from jem:
because after all that is the point of a lefty's environmental movement.
don't worry about your impact just hurt the other guy with legislation.
I was just giving you a hard time. Of course his burning leaves is de minimis.
and I am sure you and most e should do things which efficiently minimize our footprint for future generations.
and efficiently is in the eye of the beholder.
and I am sure you and most e should do things which efficiently minimize our footprint for future generations.
and efficiently is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from Ricter:
As you must be aware from your experience with the bay, lack of legislation, or at least enforcement, can be harmful to the other guy as well.
I have a wireless keyboard. I think it loses words and letters when I try to type quickly. I am not sure what word is missing from that typo above.
But the point is we should all try to do what makes sense to minimize our footprint.
For instance the amount of garbage a family of 6 puts out is significant. But, I read that most of the recycling programs we have do more harm than good. So what do you do.
But the point is we should all try to do what makes sense to minimize our footprint.
For instance the amount of garbage a family of 6 puts out is significant. But, I read that most of the recycling programs we have do more harm than good. So what do you do.
From a very interesting article on the cause of co2 change...
by one of my new favorites...
in this passage he shows that that Salby may have been the first to show that co2 levels follow change in temps even in the short term.
...
The kiddiwinks say CO2 concentration change is equal to the sum of anthropogenic and natural emissions less the natural uptake. They add that we can measure CO2 concentration growth (equal to net emission) each year, and we can reliably deduce the anthropogenic emission from the global annual fossil-fuel consumption inventories. Rearranging (6):
(7) clip_image018[1] clip_image022.
They say that, since observed ea ≈ 2ΔCO2, the natural world on the left-hand side of (7) is perforce a net CO2 sink, not a net source as they thought Professor Salby had concluded. Yet his case, here as elsewhere, was subtler than they would comprehend.
Professor Salby, having shown by careful cross-correlations on all timescales, even short ones (Fig. 4, left), that CO2 concentration change lags temperature change, demonstrated that in the Mauna Loa record, if one examines it at a higher resolution than what is usually displayed (Fig. 4, right), there is a variation of up to 3 µatm from year to year in the annual CO2 concentration increment (which equals net emission).
clip_image024clip_image026
Figure 4. Left: CO2 change lags and may be caused by temperature change. Right: The mean annual CO2 increment is 1.5 µatm, but the year-on-year variability is twice that.
The annual changes in anthropogenic CO2 emission are nothing like 3 µatm (Fig. 5, left). However, Professor Salby has detected â and, I think, may have been the first to observe â that the annual fluctuations in the CO2 concentration increment are very closely correlated with annual fluctuations in surface conditions (Fig. 5, right).
clip_image028clip_image030
Figure 5. Left: global annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rise near-monotonically and the annual differences are small. Right: an index of surface conditions (blue: 80% temperature change, 20% soil-moisture content) is closely correlated with fluctuations in CO2 concentration (green).
Annual fluctuations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are small, but those of atmospheric CO2 concentration are very much larger, from which Professor Salby infers that their major cause is not Man but Nature, via changes in temperature. For instance, Henryâs Law holds that a cooler ocean can take up more CO2.
...
more..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#more-97934
by one of my new favorites...
in this passage he shows that that Salby may have been the first to show that co2 levels follow change in temps even in the short term.
...
The kiddiwinks say CO2 concentration change is equal to the sum of anthropogenic and natural emissions less the natural uptake. They add that we can measure CO2 concentration growth (equal to net emission) each year, and we can reliably deduce the anthropogenic emission from the global annual fossil-fuel consumption inventories. Rearranging (6):
(7) clip_image018[1] clip_image022.
They say that, since observed ea ≈ 2ΔCO2, the natural world on the left-hand side of (7) is perforce a net CO2 sink, not a net source as they thought Professor Salby had concluded. Yet his case, here as elsewhere, was subtler than they would comprehend.
Professor Salby, having shown by careful cross-correlations on all timescales, even short ones (Fig. 4, left), that CO2 concentration change lags temperature change, demonstrated that in the Mauna Loa record, if one examines it at a higher resolution than what is usually displayed (Fig. 4, right), there is a variation of up to 3 µatm from year to year in the annual CO2 concentration increment (which equals net emission).
clip_image024clip_image026
Figure 4. Left: CO2 change lags and may be caused by temperature change. Right: The mean annual CO2 increment is 1.5 µatm, but the year-on-year variability is twice that.
The annual changes in anthropogenic CO2 emission are nothing like 3 µatm (Fig. 5, left). However, Professor Salby has detected â and, I think, may have been the first to observe â that the annual fluctuations in the CO2 concentration increment are very closely correlated with annual fluctuations in surface conditions (Fig. 5, right).
clip_image028clip_image030
Figure 5. Left: global annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rise near-monotonically and the annual differences are small. Right: an index of surface conditions (blue: 80% temperature change, 20% soil-moisture content) is closely correlated with fluctuations in CO2 concentration (green).
Annual fluctuations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are small, but those of atmospheric CO2 concentration are very much larger, from which Professor Salby infers that their major cause is not Man but Nature, via changes in temperature. For instance, Henryâs Law holds that a cooler ocean can take up more CO2.
...
more..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#more-97934
Hey fc were you not citing the American Meterologist Society a few pages back... guess what...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/#more-97796
"Hereâs the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):"
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who donât. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of âclimate scientistsâ versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as âdeniersâ.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the worldâs largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals donât think humans are âmostlyâ the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as âdeniersâ
Thatâs a long way from Cookâs â97% consensusâ lie.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/#more-97796
"Hereâs the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):"
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who donât. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of âclimate scientistsâ versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as âdeniersâ.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the worldâs largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals donât think humans are âmostlyâ the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as âdeniersâ
Thatâs a long way from Cookâs â97% consensusâ lie.
and on top of that members have quit the AMS over their stance.
Quote from jem:
Hey fc were you not citing the American Meterologist Society a few pages back... guess what...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/#more-97796
"Hereâs the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):"
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who donât. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of âclimate scientistsâ versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as âdeniersâ.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the worldâs largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals donât think humans are âmostlyâ the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as âdeniersâ
Thatâs a long way from Cookâs â97% consensusâ lie.
So, they are only meteorologists, not climatologists. Also proves blind adherence to right wing ideology is present in weathermen as well as forum trolls.
There is little reason to think weathermen would think much differently than the general public on the issue. They are not climatologists.
Among climatologists it's 97%.
Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%
3. Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past
150 years has been caused...
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is âYesâ]
Mostly by human activity 59%
More-or-less equally by human activity
and natural events 11%
Mostly by natural events 6%
I do not believe we (scientists) know
enough yet to determine the degree of
human or natural causation, even in the
general terms stated in the categories
above
23%
I donât know 1%
So even among the lowly unqualified weathermen who know that global warming is happening, ten times more of them think man is causing the warming then think it is caused by natural events.
I'm not including the 11% of them who don't know GW is happening. They are not worth even listening to. But it shows how stupid meteorologists can be.
This what the The Geological Society of America says
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
There is little reason to think weathermen would think much differently than the general public on the issue. They are not climatologists.
Among climatologists it's 97%.
Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%
3. Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past
150 years has been caused...
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is âYesâ]
Mostly by human activity 59%
More-or-less equally by human activity
and natural events 11%
Mostly by natural events 6%
I do not believe we (scientists) know
enough yet to determine the degree of
human or natural causation, even in the
general terms stated in the categories
above
23%
I donât know 1%
So even among the lowly unqualified weathermen who know that global warming is happening, ten times more of them think man is causing the warming then think it is caused by natural events.
I'm not including the 11% of them who don't know GW is happening. They are not worth even listening to. But it shows how stupid meteorologists can be.
This what the The Geological Society of America says
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
it was only 97% of the 33% who endorsed agw. .
see... this is the abstract of the cook paper... from cook himself.
you have been an ignorant troll this whole thread.. and you did not even bother to look up the debunked paper...
you have been misquoting and lying your ass off for years...
this is proof.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
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 1991â2011 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.
see... this is the abstract of the cook paper... from cook himself.
you have been an ignorant troll this whole thread.. and you did not even bother to look up the debunked paper...
you have been misquoting and lying your ass off for years...
this is proof.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
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 1991â2011 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.
Quote from futurecurrents:
So, they are only meteorologists, not climatologists. Also proves blind adherence to right wing ideology is present in weathermen as well as forum trolls.
There is little reason to think weathermen would think much differently than the general public on the issue. They are not climatologists.
Among climatologists it's 97%.
Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%
3. Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past
150 years has been caused...
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is âYesâ]
Mostly by human activity 59%
More-or-less equally by human activity
and natural events 11%
Mostly by natural events 6%
I do not believe we (scientists) know
enough yet to determine the degree of
human or natural causation, even in the
general terms stated in the categories
above
23%
I donât know 1%
So even among the lowly unqualified weathermen who know that global warming is happening, ten times more of them think man is causing the warming then think it is caused by natural events.
I'm not including the 11% of them who think GW is not happening. They are not worth even listening to. But it shows how stupid meteorologists can be.
This what the The Geological Society of America says
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."