Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio · 9 January 2016

Well Wayne why am I not surprised when you quote a JoNova report which somehow trumpets no consensus on climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity.

Just to change the picture a bit (for other readers not you naturally..) there are other excellent surveys of climate scientists on this topic.

Survey confirms scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
by Bart Verheggen

A survey among more than 1800 climate scientists confirms that there is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases.

This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature.

The main attribution statement in IPCC AR4 may lead to an underestimate of the greenhouse gas contribution to warming, because it implicitly includes the lesser known masking effect of cooling aerosols.

Self-reported media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.

In 2012, while temporarily based at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), my colleagues and I conducted a detailed survey about climate science. More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire. The main results of the survey have now been published in Environmental Science and Technology (doi: 10.1021/es501998e).

Level of consensus regarding attribution

The answers to the survey showed a wide variety of opinions, but it was clear that a large majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming. Consistent with other research, we found that the consensus is s90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming. This is based on two different questions, of which one was phrased in similar terms as the quintessential attribution statement in IPCC AR4 (stating that more than half of the observed warming since the 1950s is very likely caused by GHG).

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpres...fic-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

_______________________________________________

To go back to the question I posed earlier about what had happened to global warming between 2005 -2015.
You were quite right to studiously avoid actually researching the question and coming back with the answer. As we all know 2015 was in fact the warmest year on current records (but not of course to you and your elite band of merry monks)

For other people who are interested the real scientists at Real Climate did an analysis on the figures. Alas the 5000Euro would have been whisked away.

And the winner is…
Filed under:

Climate modelling Climate Science Instrumental Record IPCC

— group @ 17 November 2015

Remember the forecast of a temporary global cooling which made headlines around the world in 2008? We didn’t think it was reliable and offered a bet. The forecast period is now over: we were right, the forecast was not skillful.

Back around 2007/8, two high-profile papers claimed to produce, for the first time, skilful predictions of decadal climate change, based on new techniques of ocean state initialization in climate models. Both papers made forecasts of the future evolution of global mean and regional temperatures. The first paper, Smith et al. (2007), predicted “that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” The second, Keenlyside et al., (2008), forecast in contrast that “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

This month marks the end of the forecast period for Keenlyside et al and so their forecasts can now be cleanly compared to what actually happened. This is particularly interesting to RealClimate, since we offered a bet to the authors on whether the results would be accurate based on our assessment of their methodology. They ignored our offer but now the time period of the bet has passed, it’s worth checking how it would have gone.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/

Yep its all about data.

noco · 9 January 2016

basilio said:
Well Wayne why am I not surprised when you quote a JoNova report which somehow trumpets no consensus on climate scientists agreeing that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity.

Just to change the picture a bit (for other readers not you naturally..) there are other excellent surveys of climate scientists on this topic.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpres...fic-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

_______________________________________________

To go back to the question I posed earlier about what had happened to global warming between 2005 -2015.
You were quite right to studiously avoid actually researching the question and coming back with the answer. As we all know 2015 was in fact the warmest year on current records (but not of course to you and your elite band of merry monks)

For other people who are interested the real scientists at Real Climate did an analysis on the figures. Alas the 5000Euro would have been whisked away.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/

Yep its all about data.

Very selective again basilio.

There are another 28,200 climate change scientist who may differ......Once again their opinion is discounted....

SCAM.....SCAM....SCAM.

Only the naive will swallow this report.

basilio · 9 January 2016

noco said:
Very selective again basilio.

There are another 28,200 climate change scientist who may differ......Once again their opinion is discounted....

SCAM.....SCAM....SCAM.

Only the naive will swallow this report.

I believe you are confusing a 1990's survey with everyone from Charles Darwin to retired engineers making a comment versus a current survey of active climate scientists.

Absolutely no comparison Noco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

explod · 10 January 2016

noco said:
Only the naive will swallow this report.

Only the very naive will continue the denial. The hysteria has shifted camps.

noco · 10 January 2016

basilio said:
I believe you are confusing a 1990's survey with everyone from Charles Darwin to retired engineers making a comment versus a current survey of active climate scientists.

Absolutely no comparison Noco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Absolutely no confusion on my part.....You lefties can believe what ever you want....Only time will prove you wrong.....The IPCC IS selective and the this whole man made Global Warming is a SCAM.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...mage-gallery/d733c9612e97123c11d89a370c083e11

Here are some nice pictures of Lake Eyre to give you a pleasant Sunday morning.....Good rains in Queensland came to fill the lake....Was it due to Global Warming, Climate Change or the Sun?

BTW, the bush fires in the southern part of Australia combined with the cold winds flowing South East from the Himalayas helps to produce the northern monsoon rains......

wayneL · 10 January 2016

Well surveys such as quoted by Nova reflect my anecdotal experience. I actually have several scientists in my client list, at least 20 of various disciplines who have taken an interest in the science or are in allied fields... Geology, environmental sciences etc.

Actually none hold the catastrophic view. Similarly, none refute human influence. But there is a diversity of views along the spectrum in between. All are cognizant of a pro warming agenda in the funding.

Anecdotal to be sure, but reflects the real world ime.

SirRumpole · 10 January 2016

wayneL said:
Well surveys such as quoted by Nova reflect my anecdotal experience. I actually have several scientists in my client list, at least 20 of various disciplines who have taken an interest in the science or are in allied fields... Geology, environmental sciences etc.

Actually none hold the catastrophic view. Similarly, none refute human influence. But there is a diversity of views along the spectrum in between. All are cognizant of a pro warming agenda in the funding.

Anecdotal to be sure, but reflects the real world ime.

I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.

As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.

So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.

noco · 10 January 2016

SirRumpole said:
I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.

As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.

So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.

Rumpy bravo, but did you ever think of checking that agreement of those 190 countries before you said HIP HIP HOORAY, the skeptics have been beaten.

If you dare to read the agreement, which I don't think you have, you will note that it is full of loop holes.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/more-190-countries-agree-climate-change-pact

The Agreement “aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.” Its objective is to hold the average global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also sets a more ambitious target of limiting temperature increases to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Advocates for climate change regulation have expressed disappointment over the magnitude of the GHG reduction targets in the Pact. However, many acknowledged that the Agreement is merely a starting point and forms the framework from which to advocate for more aggressive reductions in the future.

Each signatory country agrees to prepare and maintain successive nationally determined GHG reduction contributions that it intends to achieve under the Pact. These countries must also pursue domestic mitigation measures to achieve these contributions. Successive iterations of these commitments are anticipated every five years and must reflect the “highest possible ambition.” Developed countries, such as the United States, also commit to undertake “economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.” Importantly, the Agreement does not make any nation’s GHG reduction targets a binding, international commitment. This was done, in large measure, at the insistence of the United States negotiation team which took great pains to avoid making commitments that might require Congressional approval.
- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article...gree-climate-change-pact#sthash.krRXhpZn.dpuf

So do you really think those 190 countries will be singing from the same boo?

So Rumpy, don't count your chickens before they are hatched...It is not over until the fat lady sings.

wayneL · 10 January 2016

SirRumpole said:
I'm afraid guys like you are the ones whistling in the wind Wayne.

As pointed out before 190 countries signed a declaration saying that they accept that climate change is real, man made and that something needs to be done about it.

So please, enough of skeptic paranoia , accept the facts and one of those facts is that you are wrong.

You are confusing science with politics. However, I will inform these scientists that Horace thinks they're wrong.

noco · 10 January 2016

wayneL said:
You are confusing science with politics. However, I will inform these scientists that Horace thinks they're wrong.

Wayne, that Paris agreement has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.....It will never get off the ground just like all the other conferences........The agreement is only a starting point..

As you say it is all political and less science.

It is a scam and most countries know it scam but they, like the USA, make it look like they are doing something about it.....The Chinese OTS is something like $1.50 per tonne.......mere peanuts.

ghotib · 10 January 2016

Came across this today. It's a series of beautifully clear graphs showing how much various natural and human factors have contributed to the current global warming. Info about source data at the end.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

noco · 10 January 2016

I repeat my post #6945.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%!

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2.

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all.
The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer.

Terry McCrann writes:

Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:
Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?

UPDATE:
Gavin Atkins from Hybrid News Ltd writes:
Gillard’s brand new carbon tax lie

On ABC’s 7.30 program last night, Julia Gillard was asked why Australia should put a price on carbon dioxide when the United States does not and she responded with this:

JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.

Atkins then, using IPCC figures, shows Australia uses less! He also reminds us of Kevin Rudd's oft-told lie that Australia is the hottest and driest continent on Earth and concludes:

So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?

UPDATE:
Bob Carter has a new opinion piece in Quadrant-on-line.
Global warming: 10 little facts
by Bob Carter March 14, 2011
He starts off with 10 lies, including the above.

UPDATE: More Gillard lies.....

ghotib · 10 January 2016

noco said:
I repeat my post #6945.

Why?

basilio · 10 January 2016

Lovely piece of work Ghotlib. I had seen a similar graph before but I love the way each contributing factor is identified and the impact noted.

One big interesting factor was the way aerosals are actually reducing global temperature. The problem with that is that if/when we reduce the amount of pollution from coal fired power stations and other similar factors temperatures will rise and quite significantly.

Smurf1976 · 10 January 2016

ghotib said:
Came across this today. It's a series of beautifully clear graphs showing how much various natural and human factors have contributed to the current global warming.

The concerning bit is that with the huge rise in coal consumption in China this century, the contribution of aerosols to reducing temperature would have increased substantially since the end of that chart. As such, we ought to have seen a significant cooling of the planet....

Smurf1976 · 10 January 2016

noco said:
Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Whether or not something is a pollutant depends on context and is in many cases a matter of opinion.

Lead is most certainly a pollutant if in food. It is not a pollutant in the feedstock going into a metal smelter.

Classical music could be considered noise pollution if someone starts playing it at a heavy metal concert. The same music would obviously not be considered noise pollution under different circumstances.

Ozone is well known as a desirable thing to have in the stratosphere. In cities ozone is most commonly known as "smog" and is considered undesirable in that location.

And so on. Pollution is very much a case of context.

ghotib · 11 January 2016

Smurf1976 said:
The concerning bit is that with the huge rise in coal consumption in China this century, the contribution of aerosols to reducing temperature would have increased substantially since the end of that chart. As such, we ought to have seen a significant cooling of the planet....

Good comment - It's kept me up way beyond my bedtime. Here's what I've found so far:

1. Some aerosols have a warming effect, notably Black Carbon, aka soot. So the effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions depends on their composition.

2. Aerosols stay in the atmosphere for up to about 2 weeks, which means they aren't evenly distributed around the earth as CO2, for example, is. Their effects therefore tend to be regional rather than global, and difficult to incorporate into global climate models.

3. From the Executive summary to the relevant chapter of the IPCC 5th report:

Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget.

This is an older but I think still useful article from NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php. The next page talks about the role of aerosols in cloud formation.

Gotta get some sleeeeeeep.

Ghoti

noco · 12 January 2016

Perhaps nature is taking care of Climate change according to scientists...The Southern Oceans can absorb C02...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n/news-story/3e7caf7cb54e8012e7461680ffe4be2e

Scientists have discovered an unexpected upside to global warming: giant icebergs that act as floating fertiliser factories, stimulating marine life and filtering carbon from the atmosphere.

British geographers have found that iron seeping from icebergs in the Southern Ocean cultivates massive plankton blooms that can extend for 1000km and last for months.

The discovery, revealed this morning in the journal Nature Geoscience, suggests ice chunks breaking away from Antarctica are triggering renewals of marine life in open stretches of one of the world’s most hostile environments. It also suggests that *climate scientists have under-estimated the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Southern Ocean’s microscopic plants.

This ocean is credited with about one 10th of the marine world’s carbon sequestration, with biological processes contributing about 20 per cent of this. But the newly discovered phenomenon means the ocean *recycles up to one fifth more carbon than previously thought.

Co-author Grant Bigg, of the University of Sheffield, said this could slow the overall impact of global climate change by up to 5 per cent. He said similar processes could also be occurring in other oceans.

Professor Bigg said the ecological impacts of the blooms would be mostly positive. “More phytoplankton would exist within a few hundred kilometres of an iceberg, giving an increased food source for species higher up the (food chain).” Scientists have long recognised that icebergs support plankton blooms, but the new paper suggests their scale has not been recognised.

basilio · 12 January 2016

Well there's a surprise. Noco quoting and agreeing with a science report that matter of factly recognises the reality of global warming.

By the way did The Australian also quote the full context of the Press Release or did you just snip the bits you wanted Noco ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-are-slowing-climate-change-research-reveals

trainspotter · 12 January 2016

Meanwhile in California,

On October 23, Southern California Gas Company discovered a leak at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. It is still leaking, spewing methane into the atmosphere, sickening nearby residents, and prompting Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency. It is widely being hailed as the worst environmental disaster since the BP oil spill. And SoCal Gas says the leak likely won't be contained until March at the earliest.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/11/10749602/california-gas-leak-explained

https://www.edf.org/climate/aliso-canyon-leak-sheds-light-national-problem

At two and a half months, the leak has spewed the equivalent of almost 7 million metric tons of CO2. Let's say the leak is shut down in two months and there's 5 million more. That's 12 million tons, in a state that emits around 459 million tons a year ”” about 2.5 percent of the total. But it is California's single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and will, remarkably, add another third again to the state's total methane emissions.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio

noco

basilio

explod

explod

noco

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

SirRumpole

noco

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

noco

ghotib

THIMKER

noco

ghotib

THIMKER

basilio

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

ghotib

THIMKER

noco

basilio

trainspotter

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

explod

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

THIMKER

THIMKER

THIMKER

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency