Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[rederob]

I have examined the "paper" authored by Cook et al. which sought to assess, via examination of abstracts, the opinions of approximately 12,000 scientists on anthropogenic climate change.

Yet Cook's work included about 30,000 authors, so you have confused peer reviewed papers with people.
That's the start of a very long list of very basic errors you made.
Here's how you compound your misunderstandings: you said "34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW." Whereas the assessed abstracts of most authors had no position (18,930) on AGW. This meant that only those papers (and their authors) who had an assessable position on AGW are counted at Table 3. It is not reasonable to conclude that the authors of papers where no position could be determined would not have opinions on AGW theory. However, that is a very different issue and not part of what Cook's team was looking for.
Your claim that authors in the no position category were "ignored" by Cook is nonsensical because they were clearly identified.
What you have done is confuse what is being assessed with what authors may actually believe in respect of AGW. Put another way, had the 30,000 authors been independently asked if they endorsed AGW theory it is possible to statistically arrive at greater than 98% agreement.

The above aside, I note you sidestepped my earlier point about data inhomogeneities.

 

[rederob]

Climate science is about chemical and exothermic along with endothermic reactions. No more, no less.

That's not wholly true.
The energy driving chemical reactions beyond earth formation is via electromagnetic radiation (or EMR).
Energy balance equations don't really care about the chemistry, except that compositional changes affect EMR, principally at the infrared spectrum.

 

[Knobby22]

It's just the vibe Ann
Bugger all sea level rise from the north pole melting. Ice is already 7/8ths underwater and when it melts it has less volume, amazing stuff water.

It's the other stuff like Greenland melting that would cause a bit of a rise.
But like you say there are winners and losers.
Our fellow dumb creatures are pretty big losers but they are losers in any case because of land clearing etc. Florida will be a big loser, people who have houses next to Sydney Harbour will be big losers (why do you think Turnbull is so concerned (tongue in cheek))

 

[cynic]

Yet Cook's work included about 30,000 authors, so you have confused peer reviewed papers with people.
That's the start of a very long list of very basic errors you made.

I stand corrected!
It does indeed appear that I did confuse the number of authors with the number of papers. Thankyou for alerting me to this.

Now, does that error materially detract from, the key issues I raised, regarding methodological flaws, and exclusion of over 60% of authors?

If so, how so?

If not, then of the purportedly "very long list of very basic errors" why have you chosen to only proffer this single error?

Could it be that your "very long list" of my "very basic errors" contains only one solitary element?

Here's how you compound your misunderstandings: you said "34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW." Whereas the assessed abstracts of most authors had no position (18,930) on AGW. This meant that only those papers (and their authors) who had an assessable position on AGW are counted at Table 3. It is not reasonable to conclude that the authors of papers where no position could be determined would not have opinions on AGW theory. However, that is a very different issue and not part of what Cook's team was looking for.
Your claim that authors in the no position category were "ignored" by Cook is nonsensical because they were clearly identified.
What you have done is confuse what is being assessed with what authors may actually believe in respect of AGW. Put another way, had the 30,000 authors been independently asked if they endorsed AGW theory it is possible to statistically arrive at greater than 98% agreement.

No!

I most certainly did not compound my misunderstanding.

Table 5 of Cooks "paper", highlights that, of the 1200 responses received(noting that 11 of those had to be excluded due to the absence of extracts on the papers authored), to 8547 requests for self rating, 35.5% of authors took no position!

The above aside, I note you sidestepped my earlier point about data inhomogeneities.

Does this mean that your sentiments, regarding straw men, have somehow changed?

 

[Sdajii]

Your post is pretty typical of the alarmists. You claim anyone who doesn't follow the most absurd exaggerations is 'denying facts' while you deny actual facts.

Yup ...

U are a scientist ? Really ? . Me, I am merely a robot on the internet.

I actually am a scientist. Some of the work I have done directly relevant to climate science was while working for the Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research. I was investigating the effects of environmental influences, primarily temperature, on living things, and how this affects their distributions/ability to live in certain places, which is relevant to climate change because if the climate changes, the distributions which species can live in changes (it is also relevant to other things, of course). I won't run off a complete CV, but I've done a lot of relevant work (and also a fair bit unrelated to climate).

You can make stupid jokes about being a robot to try to distract from what discredits you and facts you don't like, but facts still exist.

Every claim you just made is actually not agreed to by 97% of the science community.

Of the remaining 3%, HALF are in the employ of fossil fuel companies and well ... that leaves the flat earth types.

Again, this is simply not true. Climate scientists themselves, even biased as they are, agree with it. It's the media (social and mainstream) myths which contradict it.

Just as one clear example, literally no climate scientist at all says that the planet is now warmer than it ever was before. This is such a basic, clear fact, literally no climate scientist in the world agrees with you, and they all agree with me. If you want we can go through more examples.

Sorry but you line ... "The current rate of warming is actually not unusual." maybe ... and a very big maybe on that, the rate of CO2 change is UNPRECEDENTED and in the past, what took 200,000 years, we are going to achieve in 300 years. We already have CO2 levels at ones not seen in 3 million years and if your a scientist, which I doubt, you will know from very detailed records their is a LAG between CO2 and temperature change, Normally that is. Its never been raised this quickly even when a meteor hit the planet 65 million years ago, CO2 took a very long time to rise to its PEAK ... thousands of years.

I didn't mention CO2, and you're creating a strawman here. I agree, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently unusually high. The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

As for the rate of change, the vast majority of climate scientists agree the current rate is not unprecedented by natural rates, and only a few extreme biased, disingenuous ones make any other claim. Literally the vast majority of them agree with me on this point. It's a clear and tangible concept we have reliable evidence for.

 

[rederob]

Now, does that error materially detract from, the key issues I raised, regarding methodological flaws, and exclusion of over 60% of authors?

Yes, you got your basics wrong, and still don't understand why including a category that is not relevant to the determination is required to be excluded.

Table 5 of Cooks "paper", highlights that, of the 1200 responses received(noting that 11 of those had to be excluded due to the absence of extracts on the papers authored), to 8547 requests for self rating, 35.5% of authors took no position!

And this is relevant to what?

Does this mean that your sentiments, regarding straw men, have somehow changed?

It means that when you earlier proposed the value of "raw data," it needs to be homogeneous. You appear to be unaware of why. You also seem oblivious to the relevance of the point I was making because it directly rendered your idea unscientific. By way of analogy the federal government relies on seasonally adjusted data (for a wide range of statistical series) when identifying trends, not raw data.
I don't expect everyone to be good at science, but if you are going to post about it, please arm yourself with the fundamentals.

 

[rederob]

The myth is that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change (some climate scientists do make this claim, some don't, I disagree with the ones which do make that claim, and it is very easy to debunk it. I can go through evidence for this if you wish).

First, AGW is a theory.
You say you are a scientist, which means you know that to debunk it you have a better explanation than that which entails GHGs.
Please elaborate as you have indicated you are able.

 

[kahuna1]

Hmmm ...

I found this interesting and sadly turned my mind back from following Frosty.



I do love it .... 100 billion trillion times and that's when one listens to FOX .... Facebook ... golly shared 11,000 times ... at 500 friends per person ... that's 5.5 million people served this as truth.

It all makes sense. News like this, is unstoppable.

That humans take their news from Facebook amazes me.

 

[rederob]

As for the rate of change, the vast majority of climate scientists agree the current rate is not unprecedented by natural rates, and only a few extreme biased, disingenuous ones make any other claim. Literally the vast majority of them agree with me on this point. It's a clear and tangible concept we have reliable evidence for.

This is false and I previously provided links.
There is no period in recorded history where irradiance and temperature have consistently diverged over almost 5 decades.
Again, please offer your evidence.

 

[Sdajii]

False. It's unprecedented, and occurring when the planet should be cooling.

No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.

False

. I know of none, but please enlighten us with those you know.

The medieval warm period, the little ice age, these were more dramatic, larger swings, and quite recent. In recorded human history but before the industrial revolution (ie, we didn't cause it). Looking only slightly further back, we see such extreme climate change that within very short periods of time, the climate changed so much that sea levels changed so much that you could literally walk from Australia to PNG on dry land, or from Britain to mainland Europe (and many other dramatic examples from all over the world, which happens in the same climatic cycles. Humans had nothing to do with these events. They were extreme and rapid. Just looking at the period humans have existed (the last 100,000 years or so - very very recent and a short period of time) these climate events have happened many times. Not just two or three times. The alarmist say the sea levels may change a few feet, and indeed, they may, but this is just normal behaviour of the climate. Yes, absolutely, we may be making it zig rather than zag, that's possible. If so, we're bloody lucky, because if you think global warming is a problem you know nothing of the disaster an ice age would cause, even one half as mild as the last one, which was in recorded history but pre industrial times.

True. The media seldom quote the actual science.

Nice to have some common ground. Now even if we ignore everything else, it should be plainly obvious, even to you, to absolutely everyone, that the media has an inherent bias towards exaggeration. If you disagree with this please just ignore the rest of my post and don't respond to me again because you're not worth talking to, but I assume you understand this concept. So, if they are ignoring the actual facts, what they are reporting is more extreme than what the scientists say, and likewise, the scientists obviously have the same bias to producing as extreme an image as the possibly can, because obviously only the most extreme studies will get published or paid any attention. But even ignoring the second part, even if we assume the climate science to be unbiased and accurate (an insane assumption, but let's play devil's advocate), we know the media is going to lie to us on the side of exaggeration, and that's what people get stuck in their heads.

False. Climate is a response to a very simple energy balance equation. How climate propagates at the surface of the planet has many variables.

Oh dear goodness.

False. There is no evidence of climate changing contrary to irradiance and CO2 attributions, and no credible evidence that warming rates have been more rapid.

Your saying so doesn't make it so and the actual evidence doesn't agree with what you're saying.

False. The scientific probability of AGW being true is now calculated at 99%. The IPCC calculated it at 95% 5 years ago.

Another strawman SMH

So far there is little you have stated that is credible - your understanding of climate science is not even at primary school level.

I could say the same back to you, although rather than primary school level I would describe you as 'media-hype-believing non critical thinker'. Unfortunately, this is common.

Given your claims to date, you are delusional.

I can see you trying to drag this into an ad hominem match. From here I'll decline to respond in kind.

How about proving some of your claims, using actual science.

Notice that you haven't done any of that yourself?

 

[Sdajii]

There is no period in recorded history where irradiance and temperature have consistently diverged over almost 5 decades.
Again, please offer your evidence.

I really wish you were kidding. I... I just literally can't find the words or inclination to properly respond to something this... I mean... it's so wrong and ridiculous I can't even find descriptive words. If you're that far gone, clearly nothing I can say, no amount of evidence, can change your mind. You believe propaganda, you are a sheep, and that being the case there is no point in me conversing with you. Have a nice day.

 

[explod]

Spot on rederob.

My early research took in the well put together work of Richard Leakey, "The Sixth Extinction, biodiversity and its survival" 1995

In this it clearly documents from core and rock samples analysed by scientists that show that this current change is happening over less than one hundreds years took thousands (at minimum) of years for the others for the up to 95% wipeouts.

 

[Sdajii]

Spot on rederob.

My early research took in the well put together work of Richard Leakey, "The Sixth Extinction, biodiversity and its survival" 1995

In this it clearly documents from core and rock samples analysed by scientists that show that this current change is happening over less than one hundreds years took thousands (at minimum) of years for the others for the up to 95% wipeouts.

This literally makes no sense!

 

[rederob]

No, it is not unprecedented. Climate scientists debate how long ago (a few hundred or a few thousand years ago) the most recent time it occurred was, not whether or not it has happened. With the possible exception of a very, very few, all agree it has happened many times.

Something credible and more detailed please, not a debate.

The medieval warm period, the little ice age, these were more dramatic, larger swings, and quite recent. In recorded human history but before the industrial revolution (ie, we didn't cause it).

Please provide global temperature data. It is well known that specific events in parts of the northern hemisphere led to sharp seasonal weather changes. There is no data suggesting these trends were globally consistent.

By the way, the above charts omit 15 of the warmest temperatures ever recorded, since 2000.

 

[cynic]

Yes, you got your basics wrong, and still don't understand why including a category that is not relevant to the determination is required to be excluded.

You have alerted me to one solitary error from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors", and failed to accede to my request to explain, how that particular error, was anything but, immaterial to my expressed concerns about Cook's unscientific conduct.

I understand perfectly well, why Cook chose to exclude that category. It was quite simply too inconvenient to the conclusion he dearly wanted, so he chose to creatively dismiss it!

I also note that you have neglected to offer me, anything more, than a single, solitary error, from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors"

And this is relevant to what?
It means that when you earlier proposed the value of "raw data," it needs to be homogeneous. You appear to be unaware of why. You also seem oblivious to the relevance of the point I was making because it directly rendered your idea unscientific. By way of analogy the federal government relies on seasonally adjusted data (for a wide range of statistical series) when identifying trends, not raw data.
I don't expect everyone to be good at science, but if you are going to post about it, please arm yourself with the fundamentals.

What do temperature readings have to do with the analysis of peer reviewed paper abstracts?

Do you actually know what a straw man is?

Do you understand the concept of derailment, or are you unconscious of what it is that you are actually seeking to do here?

 

[rederob]

I really wish you were kidding. I... I just literally can't find the words or inclination to properly respond to something this... I mean... it's so wrong and ridiculous I can't even find descriptive words. If you're that far gone, clearly nothing I can say, no amount of evidence, can change your mind. You believe propaganda, you are a sheep, and that being the case there is no point in me conversing with you. Have a nice day.

You claim to be a scientist and your comeback is a science vacuum!
Please use actual science to rebut claims based on science.

 

[rederob]

You have alerted me to one solitary error from your purportedly "very long list of very basic errors", and failed to acceed to my request to explain how that particular error was anything but immaterial to my expressed concerns about Cook's unscientific conduct.

I explained that you do not count material which is irrelevant to a claim.
I demonstrated how it was possible to ask a different question to get relevant information, but that this was not Cook's methodology.
I realise you do not understand this idea, so I won't repeat myself.
Your other points are nonsensical. Go back to separate posts I made which tackled each of your posts which were about different things.
I am happy to discuss or debate or clarify, but as you again jumbled everything there is nothing coherent to work from.

 

[cynic]

I explained that you do not count material which is irrelevant to a claim.
I demonstrated how it was possible to ask a different question to get relevant information, but that this was not Cook's methodology.
I realise you do not understand this idea, so I won't repeat myself.
Your other points are nonsensical. Go back to separate posts I made which tackled each of your posts which were about different things.
I am happy to discuss or debate or clarify, but as you again jumbled everything there is nothing coherent to work from.

Rederob, this discussion was centred around Cook's bogus claim to having quantified a purportedly >97% scientific consensus on CAGW.

If over 30 (or over 60) percent, of a population cannot be confirmed to be in agreement then the percentage of agreement simply cannot be rightly said to exceed 40 (or 70) percent!

 

[rederob]

Rederob, this discussion was centred around Cook's bogus claim to having quantified a purportedly >97% scientific consensus on CAGW.

False.
Cook's work has been closely scrutinised and remains intact.
Cook showed that where climate scientists offered a position on AGW that was determinable from their abstracts, then of those assessable a clear consensus existed.
This, however, in not a scientific claim. It is the outcome of a metastudy. Science might give a different outcome one day - who knows.
It is logically flawed to suggest that if abstracts did not contain an assessable stance on AGW then they should influence the proportion which did.
It's analogous to reviewing the ability of cooks to scramble eggs by reviewing the past 1000 published cookbooks to see now many contain a recipe. It would not be reasonable to conclude that because only a third of the cookbooks included a recipe that those which did not implied the cooks did not know how to scramble eggs.

 

[wayneL]

What is your qualification/expertise, Red?