Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 07:08pm PT
|
Bullshit Jody. What’s your source?
'Closing that consensus gap'
So, in 2011, Cook decided to do one more consensus study and promote the heck out of it. He collected 11,944 papers from the ISI Web of Science database that contained the words "global warming" or "global climate change." He and 11 Skeptical Science volunteers went through the abstracts and coded the authors' positions on anthropogenic global warming. Cook set it up as a video game, almost, where five abstracts would pop up on screen and the volunteers would code them and then hit "go." Then five more would pop up.
Green, the professor from Michigan Technological University, was the most prolific and coded about half the abstracts. "It was winter in Michigan so I'd just come home and do them, and my husband was out of town, sometimes I'd do 50, sometimes I'd do five, sometimes I'd do more," she said, sipping on iced hibiscus tea on a muggy day in Washington, D.C.
Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the "consensus" that global warming is human caused.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
The funny thing is that Jody probably identifies with Mike Rowe, but doesn’t realize he actually has more in common with Rebecca.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 07:53pm PT
|
interesting thing about the Black Hole comment above if one wonders how the idea came about.
Physics (and science) is not just a set of facts, but also the understanding that relates the facts together. That understanding provides a basis of prediction, which can be tested against observation. Black Holes are a consequence of General Relativity, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence of their existence. The existence of Black Holes is consistent with the recent gravity wave observations, for which there are no other explanations.
The behavior of the Earth's climate in response to increasing CO₂ levels and be viewed as a prediction which is consistent with the observations. The increasing levels of CO₂ are also consistent with the increased used of fossil fuels by humans.
Our understanding of the climate, while not complete, is consistent with what we observe going on today. This is the consensus of the scientific community, there is no doubt about that. No other explanation of the current climate change is consistent with the observations.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 08:11pm PT
|
no, science is about whether or not the scientific explanation is consistent with observations, when an explanation is shown to be inconsistent with observation it is abandoned.
The consensus is that the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use is consistent with the observations.
As such, that explanation is our best understanding of what is happening.
It has not been shown to be inconsistent. And there are no other explanations that are consistent with the observations.
Legates' analysis has been shown to have serious flaws in it.
|
|
Climbert
climber
the t is silent
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 08:33pm PT
|
"Legates' analysis has been shown to have serious flaws in it."
That's irrelevant to us skeptics and truthers. We only need to see it quoted on a blog and we accept it as what we know to be true. We only need to get ahold of one minor climate email mistake, and we will lynch the scientists. Can't you see that Exxon and Ford Raptors are all that is important? Happiness is measured by GNP. One good oilman knows more than all you elitists combined. This is why we need to shut down NASA, the EPA, and for that matter, the FEC, FCC, CFPB, and DOI.
|
|
Climbert
climber
the t is silent
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 09:24pm PT
|
It's important to listen to the parts of climate science that I like, and to deny the rest.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 09:47pm PT
|
What started the melting of the Ice Age?
I think that is an excellent question and an active area of research, which one? What started the Ice Ages?
Here is a paper:
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO₂ as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation. Furthermore, our results support an interhemispheric seesawing of heat related to AMOC [Atlantic meridional overturning circulation] variability and suggest that these internal heat redistributions explain the lead of Antarctic temperature over CO₂ while global temperature was in phase with or slightly lagged CO₂. Lastly, the global proxy database suggests that parts of the northern mid to high latitudes were the first to warm after the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum], which could have initiated the reduction in the AMOC that may have ultimately caused the increase in CO₂ concentration.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 09:52pm PT
|
my point is that we understood what happened then
and we understand what is happening now
the increases of CO₂ in the atmosphere then were due to natural processes related to ocean circulation. that is not what is happening now. what is happening now is that we are burning fossil fuels which increase the CO₂ and the response of the climate is just what we expect it to be.
our understanding of the climate is supported by our studies of past climate, and predicts what will happen to our future climate.
those predictions are consistent with what is happening now.
There is a suposed "consensus" of OPINIONS but no hard evidence whatsoever that humans are causing climate change or even contributing to it in a significant way.
no that is not correct, there is hard evidence, why would you deny that?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 09:59pm PT
|
no, they are not the same, we can look for those changes from the past and we see that that does not explain the current increase in CO₂ and the subsequent increases in temperature
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 09:59pm PT
|
Because we know the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Modern warming is at least 10x faster than the end of ice age warming and happening at an unusual time in the cycle. That alone makes them unrelated.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 10:15pm PT
|
It's happening at a time we are pouring vast amounts of co2 into the atmosphere, it would be highly unlikely it's being caused by something else.
Basically, you have to explain away this chart. Good luck, I'm sure you will make a feeble attempt.
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 10:53pm PT
|
1. The average global mean temperature is rising.
2. There is no evidence that the factors that caused the average global mean temperature to rise in the past are causing the current rise.
3. An increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 will cause average global mean temperatures to rise.
4. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution humans have been putting (>40 billion tons yearly now) co2 that was accumulated and sequestered in the earth over hundreds of millions of years into the atmosphere.
5. Humans are causing the current rise in average global mean temperature.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2018 - 11:03pm PT
|
Taking you at your word, it still doesn't prove that man is causing it. There have been variations in the cycle throughout history.
I think you've confused what science does. The changes that are happening can be explained by human use of fossil fuels.
No other historic periods show climate behavior that is similar.
During the last deglaciation, over 6000 years for the CO2 to go from 180 ppm to 262 ppm
another 4000 years for it to go from 262 to 280 ppm
and less than 200 years from 280 to 400 ppm
|
|
Bad Climber
Trad climber
The Lawless Border Regions
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 07:21am PT
|
Ah, and yet we continue with our epic road trips--#VANLIFE! Anyone doing the eight hour round trip to the Valley this weekend?
BAd
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 07:35am PT
|
The ice cores show that temperature changes precede ratios of atmospheric CO2 content. Additionally, despite assertions to the contrary, the resolution of most proxies is insufficient to accurately determine decadal level changes in atmospheric content: i.e. the current decades
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 08:00am PT
|
The ice cores show that temperature changes precede ratios of atmospheric CO2 content.
I think you should reread the paper, at least in the last deglaciation the picture is more complex.
But it is certainly true that if you raise the CO₂ level in the atmosphere that the temperatures will rise.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 09:45am PT
|
It's a denial cult, they think it's cool to question science.
They have no idea that it makes them look like fools and what they are really doing is deepening the divide between good and wrong
Why would anyone not believe the science?, There is only one reason, they are dupes to big fossil fuel money misinformation campaigns,
they are authoritarian followers, fascists, far right wing loons, brainwashed, anti-science propagandists, liars, proponents of the misinformation they were fed,
that's more than one I guess
They only question the science when big money has a campaign against it, then they follow the propaganda like lemmings.
They believe the science about everything else, why would they not believe the science on this subject?
If you want to be skeptical about something, the first Red Flag is "paid for by Big Money Interests", you can almost be sure that it promotes it's profit over science.
AND: Organized Religion is just another Big Money interest which promotes anti-science propaganda
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 11:38am PT
|
Taking you at your word, it still doesn't prove that man is causing it. There have been variations in the cycle throughout history.
Since people can get lung cancer without smoking, it is impossible to show that smoking causes lung cancer.
So there!
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 12:59pm PT
|
Jody, the thing is, you ask others questions and they answer them intelligently and with data.
When you are asked direct questions, you won't answer them or you deflect.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 02:40pm PT
|
It is me against several others here.
It's amazing how a little non-consensus content can generate so much hostility.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2018 - 07:27pm PT
|
Malemute says -- "And if you don't know how to THINK, you will be thought an idiot."
Malemute is the real idiot.
He can't think for himself ever.
The nutcase fool only posts links and endless copy pastes.
Moron ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!