Climate Change Mega Thread

[rustled]

It is funny to watch folks with no clue dance around with no proof of anything .not once in this thread has NOAA or NASA been proven wrong

It's interesting to see the references to NOAA and NASA. I've long understood what Cook was up to, but I've also been rather curious about the role of scientists in informing public policy.

It seems to me we absolutely want scientists who are completely certain of the consequences regarding action/inaction to be vocal on our behalf. Vaccines, public sanitation, sterilization practices around surgery, antibiotics, the health risks of particulate pollution and so much more all required action through public policy. Science and research generally do more good than harm in this regard.

Being wrong usually happens in the early days of investigation into a theory. Prescribing thalidomide during pregnancy, eliminating healthy sources of nutrition because of cholesterol, and the autism/vaccine connection are clear examples of harm done when public policy responds too quickly to science, and of course we have the destruction of healthy forests for pellets, the diversion of agriculture from food to ethanol, and the large-scale destruction of desert, forest, and agricultural land to site solar farms and windmills as examples of too-quick reactions to the early modeling on climate change.

So I got thinking about the role of the scientist (not to be confused with folk like John Cook and his disciples.) This was an issue during the Harper admin, with accusations of muzzling, although with much research funded by the government, it seems reasonable to expect the government to have some oversight (and heaven knows we haven't seen a deluge of information released since Harper's time.)

A Google search provided an interesting document:
The Role And Responsibilities Of The Scientist In Public Policy
http://issp.uottawa.ca/sites/issp.uotta ... lities.pdf
A brief excerpt, although I encourage those passionate and pragmatic about this issue to read the entire document:

The relationship between science and government is an uneasy one. The issues involved have provided fertile ground for analysis, review, theoretical and empirical studies, and a seemingly endless stream of government reports, commissions and advice. At the heart of the relationship is a fundamental difference in the mode of thinking required to accomplish the central missions of the two endeavours.

At the core of science is a pursuit of truth. Regardless how hidden or difficult to articulate, natural phenomena can ultimately be explained by careful application of the scientific method. As a popular television program proclaims, "the truth is out there". But, nature only reveals her truth to patient, painstaking analysis that knows no time constraints, and proceeds step by step towards understanding.

The essential function of government is to make choices, normally in situations of considerable uncertainty and under the glare of public scrutiny, where the concept of a correct answer is rarely useful. Right and wrong give way to better and worse. Moreover, the decisions are inherently subjective, as much as they might be informed by various sources of information. Time frames are usually determined by non-controllable events and are often measured in hours. Choices must be taken which benefit some at the expense of others, and the only compass is the judgement and character of the decision-makers, helped by the information available to them at the time.

Of course, I do expect many (particularly those "accidentally" following Cook) will be more comfortable ignoring it. C'est la vie.

[Glacier]

8.1 to 8.2 is double. It’s an exponential scale....

Saying “.1 isn’t a big difference” when you have no understanding of what the numbers represent is like saying that having 24 chromosomes is no big deal. It’s only a difference of 1.

No, it's a 25% increase, not a doubling, but I get what you're saying that it is logarithmic, so each step is a lot bigger than you realize. Still, it's not that big of a difference. Having pH change by 25% in absolute terms happens from day to day.

[Jflem1983]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ge-debate/

[Jlabute]

ph = -log(x)

8.2 gives a molar concentration of 6.31 x 10^-9
8.1 gives a molar concentration of 7.94 x 10^-9

So Glacier is right (gold star), just a tad over 25%. A very big change in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny amount.

[Mark5]

Why don`t 100% of scientists agree? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA ... e=youtu.be

[Jlabute]

Why don`t 100% of scientists agree? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA ... e=youtu.be

Good video, in regards to atmospheric pressure as a larger contributor than atmospheric chemistry to average global temperature.

When it comes down to it, not even 1% of scientists agree since that makes the assumption they got together to make a formal decision. It's not even a real consensus as in having all the scientists vote. Consensus is not science anyways. It is about 1 person giving his interpretation of what he thinks 10's of thousands of other scientists think, and what other scientists think isn't clear, and has nothing to do with scientific method or even consensus.

10's of thousands of scientists also petition these ridiculous consensus as being incorrect and stating their papers are misinterpreted. 97% is nothing more than a childish inflammatory political move by desperate leaders looking to support the need for more tax dollars, ignoring backlash because they need a particular outcome.
http://donndears.com/2015/05/12/the-fraudulent-97-consensus/

[CapitalB]

The amount of absolute nonsense you guys post claiming its science is astounding. We apparently need to start some sort of canada wide adult education program to explain why arm chair nutto youtube video makers aren't scientists. Its like referencing lizard people as a real thing.

I guess at least your having a good time backslapping each other over a big win using crazy pseudo science.

[Glacier]

The amount of absolute nonsense you guys post claiming its science is astounding. We apparently need to start some sort of canada wide adult education program to explain why arm chair nutto youtube video makers aren't scientists. Its like referencing lizard people as a real thing.

I guess at least your having a good time backslapping each other over a big win using crazy pseudo science.

No one has an absolutely monopoly on truth. Likewise, no one has a monopoly of bull****. If I have posted any factually untrue things in this thread, be specific and point them out. If you don't point them out, I can't learn what the real facts show.

Hopefully I'm better at correcting my mistakes than you are with your mistaken assumptions about accelerating sea level rising and temperatures.

[CapitalB]

Found a new picture to illustrate the minority opinion of Climate change denial

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of about 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which about 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.

[Glacier]

Um, you do realize that everyone in this thread agrees that "explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused."

[CapitalB]

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[8] AR5 followed the same general format as of AR4, with three Working Group reports and a Synthesis report.[8] The Working Group I report (WG1) was published in September 2013.[8]

The conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[9]
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[10]
Human influence on the climate system is clear.[11] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[12] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[11]
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"[13]
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"[14]
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[13]
Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[15]
The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[16] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[17]

I'm absolutely just posting quotes from wikipedia

[rustled]

Found a new picture to illustrate the minority opinion of Climate change denial

Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of about 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which about 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.

Citing Cook again. Policy-based science.

[CapitalB]

Citing Cook again. Policy-based science.

Author of chart: User:Dragons flight, March 2012

Summary
This 2012 chart created by user Dragons flight was based on data from 2011. There are more recent studies including Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

Summary of the opinions from climate / earth scientists regarding climate change.

The Doran & Zimmerman 2009 study was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels", and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts.

The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.

That study's sample included 903 scientists counted as CE ("convinced by the evidence"). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010 http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/ ... 3187SI.pdf

[rustled]

Citing Cook again. Policy-based science.

Author of chart: User:Dragons flight, March 2012

Summary
This 2012 chart created by user Dragons flight was based on data from 2011. There are more recent studies including Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

Summary of the opinions from climate / earth scientists regarding climate change.
...
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/ ... 3187SI.pdf

Yes, I see that. Noted that the Earth Science Faculty/Researchers bar is missing from the "Little or none" side and that at least one of the links to supporting documentation (Doran Zimmerman) no longer work. Also noted this graph is not presented here as scientific research, but as support of the policy-based "science" initiated and promoted by Cook.

However, I was responding to the text you'd posted, citing Wikipedia, citing Cook. Policy-based science.

[CapitalB]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

- In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

- In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.

- Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[136] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[137]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

- A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes

- A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[138]

- A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".

- James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[139] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[140] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.

- In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[142]