Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Ricter:

Rising heat-related deaths are not part of the equation?

No... The U.S. has lower percentage umber of cold related deaths because 99.99% of the population has access to adequate housing and heating in the winter months.

Heat related deaths have been steady over a long period of time with spikes in some individual years.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from gwb-trading:



Heat related deaths have been steady over a long period of time with spikes in some individual years.

Got a link to a data series on this?

Edit: never mind, I have it.

 

[stu]

Quote from gwb-trading:

It appears you DO NOT know the difference between a survey like Doran/Zimmerman where they received 3000+ results to a survey sent to scientists, and a study where the NAS looks at citation data and infers a hypothesis.

BTW - AGW is not a FACT. By 2040 it will be viewed as fabricated scam; the same way we view the 'global cooling' scare from the 1970s today.

What a ridiculous thing to say. By that token ALL surveys are hypothesis. Results drawn from citation data is hardly inferring hypothesis.

Also I think I'll take what is science and fact today in preference to your 25 odd years into the future crystal ball gazing guesses , thanks all the same

 

[stu]

Quote from gwb-trading:

So you are taking yet another opportunity to cast your absurd categorization on those who do not support AGW alarmism.

Let me be clear for the record. Nearly all the people I have met who are skeptical about AGW have PhD and Master degrees. None are 'evolution deniers / no moon landing / flat earth / birthers / god did it conspiracy extremists'.

P.S. Many vote democratic and do university research for a living.

Not at all. I suggest you read more carefully what I said. Skepticism is fine, essential to the scientific process. The extent to which damage to the climate has or is going to take place, is where legitimate debate lies. Where valid skepticism is useful.

Trying to create controversy toward the basic fact of AGW and against valid skepticism is what I’m talking about.

People with PhD and Master degrees should perhaps be distinguishing between what is scientific fact (co2 does warm the globe and man made co2 is remaining in the atmosphere over and above that being absorbed naturally and therefore blindingly obvious by that alone AGW is made fact) and what is yet to be resolved (what, if any, degree of change to the climate because of AGW has , is going to , or is not possible to happen).

If you’re advocating constructive skepticism, a little skepticism about AGW skepticism would be in order.

 

[jem]

Its a fact that NASA recently stated Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are "natural thermostats”

“When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” Said James Russell a scientist for NASA... after showing the thermosphere light up after a recent solar event.

Therefore ...

We do not know if adding man made CO2 to our very complex and dynamic system causes net warming.

Because just as greenhouse gases keep the earth from getting too cold... they also prevent the earth from getting too warm.

So man made warming is far from a scientific fact. (I grant you that cutting down rain forests and urbanization would seem to cause warming... but science does not even know if we are warming outside natural variability)

It is possible adding more co2 at this stage in our warming and cooling cycle would block more warming energy or dissipate more energy than it would keep in.

Science does not have robust enough models on this subject.

So the truth is science does not know.

Which is why only about 40 of the 11000 papers stated man causes most of the warming and why the 97 percent number is total bullshit.

Quote from stu:

To be very clear then, I produced another "broad survey" , though the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is hardly merely a survey.
1,376 researchers with citation data finding 97% of scientists support agw, is far broader than any "survey".

Agw is a fact in the same way photosynthesis is a fact. The role co2 plays in those two is fact.
Co2 causes global warming is fact. If it didn't the earth would be completely unsuitable for 'life as we know it Jim'. That's a fact.

Man made co2 is a fact.
That a portion of man made co2 from burning fossil fuel remains in the atmosphere is a fact. Having a uniquely distinct signature, it is measured as a fact.
Natural processes take up all natural emissions of co2, plus nearly 60% of man-made emissions. That's a fact. This leaves around 16 billion tons of anthropogenic co2 in the atmosphere every year . That's a fact.

As co2 warms the atmosphere by retaining heat, human-induced co2 will do exactly the same when left in the atmosphere. That's a fact. As human-induced co2 is being left in the atmosphere, agw is a fact.

So agw is a fact just like photosynthesis is a fact. The real debate is to what significant extent there is, or is going to, be any harmful affect upon the climate. Then there's a separate political debate about how to manage the issue based upon the fact.
Or in other words, how much of a no brainer is it for humankind to not unbalance a natural system which fundamentally holds in equilibrium the difference between human existence and extinction.
The mornic anti-science refuseniks of agw facts do not produce any kind of real debate. Just one more weird wonderland where evolution deniers / no moon landing / flat earth / birthers / god did it conspiracy extremists once again struggle with the reality of facts.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
Its a fact that NASA recently stated Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are "natural thermostats"

That is a known and understood scientific process. It does not directly influence the science of global warming. I suggest you do more research.

However, dealing with that fact then.
As a fact, Co2 is a natural thermostat. So pumping more of it, unnaturally, into the atmosphere is not going to be a particularly good idea is it. Especially as what you have said is a complex and dynamic system within which science doesn't have all the anwers yet. It is at the very least problematic.

But if you are dealing with fact, you must realize 40% of man made co2 emmisions are not being absorbed by natural process. That too is a fact. Left in the atmosphere and moreover added to every year, it is then, now an unnatural and additional thermostat to those "natural thermostats".

Quote from jem:
It is possible adding more co2 at this stage in our warming and cooling cycle would block more warming energy or dissipate more energy than it would keep in.

You've already said scientific models on the subject are not robust enough. Making guesses and assertions based upon no recognized scientific model like that is one step worse. Wing and a prayer legacy then for your children and future generations is it?

Let's pump more co2 into the atmophere because the climate might be naturally warming or cooling and AGW (of all things) might stop that.. Really!?

Quote from jem:
Which is why only about 40 of the 11000 papers stated man causes most of the warming and why the 97 percent number is total bullshit.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107....." total bullshit".
Yeah right

Co2 is a greenhouse gas. It's called that for a reason. It's a fact it warms the atmosphere.
Artificially pumping more of the warming stuff into the atmosphere on such a scale that it sits there but won't further warm the atmosphere, is the argument for denying AGW is a fact?

Like I say, AGW deniers / flat earth/ birthers......... pretty much fitting in the same slot.

 

[jem]

Your main attack was stupid as can be.

Because I agree, if you do not know what pollution is doing to the the atmosphere pumping more of into the atmosphere is not a good idea. As a conservative I believe we should conserve nature for our children as well.

What I object to is people like you making unsupported assumptions and then acting like its proven science.

regarding... 97% vs reality.

here is a very recently peer reviewed counter to your misinformation.
---

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

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.

 

[Lucrum]

Associated Press's Seth Borenstein:"'Temperatures Go Off the Charts Around 2047"

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Your main attack was stupid as can be.

Because I agree, if you do not know what pollution is doing to the the atmosphere pumping more of into the atmosphere is not a good idea. As a conservative I believe we should conserve nature for our children as well.

What I object to is people like you making unsupported assumptions and then acting like its proven science.

regarding... 97% vs reality.

here is a very recently peer reviewed counter to your misinformation.
---

My main attack is stupid as can be because you agree with it. Coming from you that figures.

But if you were at all honest, wouldn't you admit you don't even understand what my 'main attack' is?

AGW is not even the same thing as climate change. Natural global warming is a fact. In the same way AGW is a fact; co2 will warm the atmosphere no matter its origin.

ACC (anthropic climate change) is the logical scientifically based anticipated outcome from natural global warming and anthropic global warming.

A similar but far more scientific approach to your own admittance that - if you don't know what pollution is doing to the atmosphere pumping more of it into the atmosphere is not a good idea - only with actual facts and figures.

1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data showing 97% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed support the tenets of ACC (anthropic climate change) is not the 97% Doran survey.

Your politics are another separate issue and probably another reason why you are always so confused.
If you do so object to people making unsupported assumptions and then acting like its proven science, then you should start by objecting against yourself.

 

[fhl]