'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Polly P wrote:

That is not true. I remember reading one of the IPCC reports where they were predicting the global surface temp to increase by maybe that much per decade but instead had only increased like 0.03 C since 1998 - which is a rounding error.

I don't see your citation.

This is from IPCC report 5 - from Page 5 of the Summary for Policy Makers:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial

decadal and

interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short

records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term

climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05

to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated

since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}

What a shocker, both sides are full of it.

I don't believe the 97% figure that's bandied about. The thresholds they use for determining a paper supports the notion that human activity is driving global warming are questionable at best.

I also think Epstien as equally as intellectually dishonest. "Main cause" does not mean more than 50%; it means more than any other cause. If there are 20 different factors being attributed to global warming, the "main cause" could be just a 7% factor.

Lastly, saying the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years is also intellectually dishonest. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain as to why using a single year compared to another single year isn't the only reference point to consider.

You can pick and choose various parts of of the latest report to back up your case anyway you want.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998 2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

Averaged over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere, precipitation has increased since 1901 (medium confidence before and high confidence after 1951). For other latitudes, area-averaged long term positive or negative trends have low confidence. Observations of changes in ocean surface salinity also provide indirect evidence for changes in the global water cycle over the ocean (medium confidence). It is very likely that regions of high salinity, where evaporation dominates, have become more saline, while regions of low salinity, where precipitation dominates, have become fresher since the 1950s. {1.1.1, 1.1.2}

Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity, measured as hydrogen ion concentration. {1.1.2}

Over the period 1992 to 2011, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass (high confidence), likely at a larger rate over 2002 to 2011. Glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide (high confidence). Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has continued to decrease in extent (high confidence). There is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s in response to increased surface temperature and changing snow cover. The annual mean Arctic sea-ice extent decreased over the period 1979 to 2012, with a rate that was very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1% per decade.

Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased in every season and in every successive decade since 1979, with the most rapid decrease in decadal mean extent in summer (high confidence). It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea-ice extent increased in the range of 1.2 to 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012. However, there is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in Antarctica, with extent increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. The rate of sea-level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr1.pdf

Carbon shill wrote:

Umm... the author's self-described "for-profit think tank" makes its money by providing PR consulting to the energy industry:

http://industrialprogress.com/consulting/

Textbook liberal ad hominem. Operating for profit does not invalidate the facts he presents. Your argument is invalid.

Hi,

I was looking for a website where there is some information on running. Since this obviously isn't a website about running, could someone please direct me to one?

Thanks!

Love of Lactate wrote:

Textbook liberal ad hominem. Operating for profit does not invalidate the facts he presents. Your argument is invalid.

You lack understanding of logical variance of arguments versus logical validity. Inclusion of a logical fallacy does not make the argument incorrect, only poorly laid out. Your argument is invalid.

You Are What You Is wrote:

Hi,

I was looking for a website where there is some information on running. Since this obviously isn't a website about running, could someone please direct me to one?

Thanks!

You clicked on a thread with a title related to global warming. If I directed you to the site you request you would just fvck it up anyway.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Polly P wrote:

That is not true. I remember reading one of the IPCC reports where they were predicting the global surface temp to increase by maybe that much per decade but instead had only increased like 0.03 C since 1998 - which is a rounding error.

I don't see your citation.

Here is a plot of HADCRUT4 (NH+SH)/2 monthly data, zooming into the last 65 years, and adding a 12 month trailing average (to give a better idea of trends):

Image:

Now the same thing, but zooming in closer, to post-1995, to focus on the recent "pause" people talk about:

Image:

And finally, a closer view from 2005-present:

Image:

Draw your own conclusions about what has happened since 1998. Those are the data, you can download them and manipulate them yourself.

Love of Lactate wrote:

Carbon shill wrote:

Umm... the author's self-described "for-profit think tank" makes its money by providing PR consulting to the energy industry:

http://industrialprogress.com/consulting/

Textbook liberal ad hominem. Operating for profit does not invalidate the facts he presents. Your argument is invalid.

That it's an ad hominem argument does not necessarily invalid the argument. Clearly the credibility of the source is relevant and it's fair to label Alex Epstein as an industry shill.

Regardless of the precise degree of consensus as measured by various methodologies there is very broad agreement in science that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will have significant negative consequences. How much, how fast, and the likely consequences are legitimately open but not unbounded questions.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Sally Vixxxxens wrote:

From Forbes:

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

Outright lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

Fewer than 0.1% of the signers have any background in climate sciences and some of the names appear to be whole fabrications.

You are arguing w/ Sally V. She believes:

HOF linebacker LT had zero tackles

The Keystone XL pipeline will help reduce dependence on foreign oil

I don't want to reduce dependence on foreign oil. I want to ANNIHILATE oil because I HATE mankind and want billions of people to fucking DIE or better yet, NEVER BE BORN!

Love of Lactate wrote:

Carbon shill wrote:

Umm... the author's self-described "for-profit think tank" makes its money by providing PR consulting to the energy industry:

http://industrialprogress.com/consulting/

Textbook liberal ad hominem. Operating for profit does not invalidate the facts he presents. Your argument is invalid.

It appears you don't understand what an ad hominem means.

Love of Lactate wrote:

Carbon shill wrote:

Umm... the author's self-described "for-profit think tank" makes its money by providing PR consulting to the energy industry:

http://industrialprogress.com/consulting/

Textbook liberal ad hominem. Operating for profit does not invalidate the facts he presents. Your argument is invalid.

You're clearly not bright for several reasons:

1) The so-called "Textbook liberal ad hominem" is exactly the type of argument the right makes ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the time when discrediting sources they don't agree with. I guarantee you that you've done it many times. Don't be a hypocrite.

2) In science there is something called "disclosure", and it involves listing those who financed the studies, who you have worked for that might influence your research, and any other connections you might have to groups that have an interest in your results. Why do you think they do this? So people can judge the objectivity of your results. Yes, such connections don't alone necessarily discredit one's results, but it can influence it, and it is relevant.

3) the "facts" he presents, are mostly not facts at all, and the ones that are do little to put much of dent int he 97% argument.

Sorry if that was too complex for you.

Polly P wrote:

It is hilarious that Global Warming Alarmists (Dupes) insist that escalating CO2 Emissions is the main cause of Global Warming. But get this ... since 1998 there has been NO warming of the Earth EVEN THOUGH China's CO2 emissions have TRIPLED during that time and so too has India's, with the rest of the world also seeing their CO2 emisssions increase, increase and further increase. Just hilarious!

Cool! But you might want to look into trends over the past few decades in this thing that we scientists refer to as 'the oceans'. It's super technical but in a nutshell, it turns out surface air is not the only part of the earth that can absorb heat. Who knew!!

Isn't it cute how liberals are unable to argue against facts? Just state a fact they don't like and they immediately attack the messenger or spam the thread with capitalized words.

The telltale sign of a liberal is fear of facts.

sc42 wrote:

Polly P wrote:

It is hilarious that Global Warming Alarmists (Dupes) insist that escalating CO2 Emissions is the main cause of Global Warming. But get this ... since 1998 there has been NO warming of the Earth EVEN THOUGH China's CO2 emissions have TRIPLED during that time and so too has India's, with the rest of the world also seeing their CO2 emisssions increase, increase and further increase. Just hilarious!

Cool! But you might want to look into trends over the past few decades in this thing that we scientists refer to as 'the oceans'. It's super technical but in a nutshell, it turns out surface air is not the only part of the earth that can absorb heat. Who knew!!

Yeah - and you might read some of the IPCC reports (1-5) that have been predicted increases in global surface temps of so much per decade and the actual increases over the last 2 decades have been but a fraction of their projected temps. They have been wrong time after time after time.

the people that believe in Global Warming always say that those that are skeptical of the idea are so because they make money off of energy, but they fail to recognize that those that push Global Warming profit greatly from the fear mongering that goes along with it.

Even if global warming is a lie, what's the problem moving to cleaner, cheaper, sources of energy?