What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

your b.s. returns - fraudulent debunked studies.

But even examining the point...
I would have no problem believing cutting down rain forests and urbanization contribute to warming.

The problem for you is... you have no science showing co2 causes warming...

man made co2 is only a tiny sliver of 1% of greenhouse gases. and greenhouse gases....


here is the science from NASA...

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”


http://science.nasa.gov/science-new...12/22mar_saber/

No. YOU say there is no science proving CO2 causes warming. The scientists say otherwise. I linked you to the science. You choose to ignore it and call NASA fraudulent. I am more convinced than ever that you are simply insane.

You remind me of this guy.....

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

My counter arguments come from the recent papers and NASA.

If the scientists produced studies showing co2 leads warming instead of the studies showing co2 trails warming... you could perhaps associate science with the IPCC spin.

However since the very recent peer reviewed study shows only .3 percent of the research papers in the area support the IPCCs conclusion... you can be (99.7 %) sure the IPCC is not relying on science and hence their should be considered a scam.

Like a crazy broken record. Here's what NASA says

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,

and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"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." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

 

[jem]

you are such a troll..

1. i granted you the science that greenhouses gases can keep some warmth in.

2. NASA showed with science and you must agree that in an upper layer CO2 repels some solar energy.

So... the question is what is the net effect on the earth's temperature when you add co2 to the atmosphere...

the truth is that science does not know...

you produced no other science viable science...

the rest of your link was just speculative numbers plugged into a energy budget formula. The recent lack of warming showed those numbers to be ridiculous guesses.

Quote from futurecurrents:

No. YOU say there is no science proving CO2 causes warming. The scientists say otherwise. I linked you to the science. You choose to ignore it and call NASA fraudulent. I am more convinced than ever that you are simply insane.

You remind me of this guy.....

 

[jem]

the moon gets up to 105 during the day... what moderates the earths temps... greenhouses gases....

here is a comment from and excellent exchange on your link at skeptical science...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm


"matt sykes at 03:53 AM on 16 February, 2010
@Ricardo At 15 microns the sun produces 180 times as much energy as the earth.

It is irrelevant how much energy the sun produces in the visible, it is the energy emmitted by the earth and absorbed by CO2 which is key.

Your Siki link states: "Thus heat is easily let in, but is partially trapped by these gasses as it tries to leave. "

This isnt true. Visible energy is let in, not heat. The heat of the sun is bloocked by the same GH gasses as block the heat going out.

The difference is that thr sun produces far more heat than the earth. The net effect of GH ghasses is therefore to reduce the maximum temperaturs that would be otherwise acchieved,

Consider the moon,. Its daytime temperature is 105`C. It gets this hot because it hasnt got an atmosphere."

 

[OccupyThis]

Just cut the shit- when do we all start on fire?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Are these the same 95% from 1970 who told us the world would be frozen over by the beginning of the 21st century if we didn't do something, NOW?
There is only one solution according the the leftists. We must tax Americans into a third world status while igoring the fact that Russia, China, and India are the bigger problem. It is the final solution. Comrade Gore said so.

 

[fhl]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Are these the same 95% from 1970 who told us the world would be frozen over by the beginning of the 21st century if we didn't do something, NOW?
There is only one solution according the the leftists. We must tax Americans into a third world status while igoring the fact that Russia, China, and India are the bigger problem. It is the final solution. Comrade Gore said so.

I was looking around the internet the other day and now the left is saying that it is a myth that global cooling was predicted in the 70's.

These people are just pathological liars.

 

[John_Wensink]

FC how many scientists agreed that the temperatures would be much warmer now than they actually are? I bet it's above 90%.

Also, the heat being trapped in the Pacific is merely a theory. Ie. a guess. No proof.

LOL idiot.

Quote from futurecurrents:

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, experts say.

WASHINGTON — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, experts say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably issue a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

Related: Scientists set to prepare strongest warning that warming man-made

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.


http://news.msn.com/science-technology/what-95percent-certainty-of-warming-means-to-scientists

 

[jem]

Quote from John_Wensink:

FC how many scientists agreed that the temperatures would be much warmer now than they actually are? I bet it's above 90%.

Also, the heat being trapped in the Pacific is merely a theory. Ie. a guess. No proof.

LOL idiot.

The recent peer reviewed study would say that a third at most of the papers would have made that prediction because the large majority understood the sun and the tides played a big role and there was no science showing man made co2 had a significant influence.

 

[futurecurrents]

I know the denialist Republicans here are too fucking stupid to understand this chart but maybe some others may get something out of it.