Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Comments 1701 to 1750:
-
Gootmud at 00:43 AM on 26 April 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Seems to me the main paradox between AGW and the 2nd law of thermo is not about radiation transfer but about attribution. The greenhouse effect says higher average CO2 over decades causes higher average temperatures. But how does a 2°C temperature rise over a century cause a 20°C heat wave for a week in Toronto? Humans have gotten a bit taller over the past century, but no one would consider that a satisfactory explanation of a village where everyone is 8 feet tall.
As summer arrives in the northen hemisphere, we're due for another season of news stories that claim such causality without asking whether it makes any sense. Was CO2 especially dense in Toronto that week?
One can obviously handwave that Earth is a heat engine not constrained by the 2nd law, or that climate is a chaotic system that does weird things we can't explain, but that undermines the claims we can attribute the heat wave to anything in particular. Or one can point to computer simulations where similar weird things happen, but that just relocates the paradox from Toronto to SimToronto.
-
Evan at 20:15 PM on 22 April 2023Cranky Uncle earns 2023 IILP Annual Best Publication Award
Great job John and company. A real win for truth.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:25 AM on 22 April 2023There is no consensus
Okay, let's go over this again, Albert.
The premise of the paper is as stated in the introduction.
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
Do you honestly not see the words: human activity is very likely causing most of the current AGW?
That statement creates the fundamental basis of papers that either endorse or minimize that position.
If you're telling me that most "skeptics" agree that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW... hey! We're good!
"It is a clear indication that only 1.6% of the papers thought that humans were causing most of warming."
Nope, precisely because categories 1, 2 and 3 all endorse the idea that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW.
"...AMS in 2016 and it explicitly asked members if they vpbelieved humans were responsible for the majority of warming and 67% said yes."
And they also explain that most of their members were NOT experts in climate science and do not publish climate research. The greater their expertise, the greater their level of agreement, with the highest level of expertise also demonstrating ~97% agreement with the idea that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW.
"...why Cook went to considerable lengths to hide the category numbers."
He didn't.
"I am passionate about truth in science..."
Clearly, quite the opposite.
"...I have an open mind on all matters..."
As Carl Sagan used to say, "It's good to keep an open mind, but not so much that your brain falls out." I think that perfectly describes your position in this matter.
"In the sixteenth century, 99.9% of scientists believed the Sun orbited the Earth."
No, it was 16th century scientists who were explaining to people the earth orbited the sun. Once presented within a scientific/mathematical structure, scientists of the day readily accepted this fact.
"i Won't be commenting on this thread again."
We are relieved.
-
Albert at 09:03 AM on 22 April 2023There is no consensus
"a) If you had bothered to read the actual paper it's explained why the figures are organized as they are."
I have read the paper multiple times and the so called explanation groups 1,2 and 3 together and compares them to groups 5 6 and 7 and as I have said, most sceptics would be in group 3.
The "minimise" option Is a red herring as most sceptics believe in an ECS of 1.2C which is both group 3 and groups 56 and 7.
"b) Your 1.6% figure only relates to papers that explicitly quantify human contribution. With that you'd have to compare that to other papers that explicitly minimize human contribution."
Nonsense. It is a clear indication that only 1.6% of the papers thought that humans were causing most of warming.
You can't count, for example, a paper that explicitly quantifies against a paper that implicitly endorses human contribution.Nomsense. Most sceptics who write papers would be in several categories and that is the lie in Cooks paper.
The only time that a scientific organisation has polled its members was by the AMS in 2016 and it explicitly asked members if they vpbelieved humans were responsible for the majority of warming and 67% said yes.
They didn't play the pretend game of setting up false categories and compare warmists against sceptics like Cook did.
The AMS were extremely embarrassed by this and tried to spin the result saying it was misinterpreted blah blab blah but since this no scientific body has ever dared poll their members again.
Roh you still havenot explained why Cook went to considerable lengths to hide the category numbers. It took me a couple of days to eventually figure out how to chuck the file into a spreadsheet and extract the totals.
I am passionate about truth in science, you're not, so let's just agree to disagree.
PS engaged with you on this subject because I have an open mind on all matters and wanted to read whether there were aspects of the "97%" I wasn't aware of, but your comments show me that there aren't.
Last comment
A few years ago the Australian sceptic society had a comment on their home page saying nothing was exempted from scepticism but also had a manifesto on global warming saying the science was settled and gave theit reasons.
I went through the manifesto line by line discrediting it by referring to data and submitted it. However next day it had disappeared and I contacted the editor and he said he had passed it on to "experts" to see if it was valid. He said he would get back to me but never did.
So a sceptic society now determines what you can be sceptical about. You can challenge the theories of Newton and Einstein but not the high church of climate change. That makes it a faith, not science.
Very last comment
In the sixteenth century, 99.9% of scientists believed the Sun orbited the Earth.
i Won't be commenting on this thread again.
Moderator Response:[BL] Points previously made, previously refuted, all marked with warning snips. If there had not already been a response, the entire post would have been deleted as sloganeering.
As this user is incapable of reading, understanding, and/or following a comments policy, the only thing we can agree on is that this will be his last post - on this thread, or any other.
-
stranger1548 at 06:24 AM on 22 April 2023It's not bad
This doesn't seem to help!
"Climate news can seem dire with little hope for a better world. Talk to climate scientists, engineers and researchers, however, and they see a different future – a positive one that's well within our reach.
For Earth Day 2023, instead of imagining the worst, USA TODAY invites you to envision the best. Conversations with a dozen experts give a glimpse of what a time traveler from today might see as they experience life a generation from now in a United States that put its mind to solving climate change – no miracles or as-yet-uninvented technology needed."
https://news.yahoo.com/embraced-clean-energy-imagined-green-094101907.html
Is everything really coming up roses? I thought in order to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees C it would require technology that can take massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and finding a place to store it. If we let it go to 2 degrees C, can we relax?
-
prove we are smart at 20:06 PM on 21 April 2023EGU2023 - Upcoming presentations in Vienna
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, it isn't often ( well in my information world) I hear even a little of good about Davos and the WEF. You know I believe in the inherent good in people and people can change.
But I feel like I am constantly on a seesaw-occassionally balancing evenly-a little down and losing some hope to a little up and we'll muddle through. But the last few years have seem me sink way down and no corresponding way up to match.
Yes I agree with your statement "(SkS can be understood to have been formed in response to the successful misleading marketing by conservative populists trying to preserve and grow their undeserved perceptions of status and superiority)."
As Prof Anderson asks " Will it be a velvet revolution or a violent revolution?" I believe that is coming, it was coming anyway with the widening inequality, climate disruption has sped it up and will spread it more.
Perhaps the harmful media ( sometimes contolled by or controlling those populists) can be called out. Then the majority may be ruled by politicians that believe "life is about planting trees under whose shade you will never get to sit" My seesaw may swing up, perhaps my lucky Australia will go with the former then-i think the larger the percentage of homeless and less resilient citizens, the more the latter will dominate-spilling over to their neighbouring countries.
In this age of misinformation and forgotten morality, we NEED this to happen, from our IPCC- "Targeting a climate resilient, sustainable world involves fundamental changes to how society functions, including changes to underlying values,worldviews, ideologies,social structures,political and economic systems and power relationships."
That is a revolution in every way possible-bring on the leaders and media that can wake us up to a velvet one..
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:53 PM on 21 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert started an interesting discussion with their comment @120.
I have an update of my questioning comment @124.
My updated question for Albert is "What explains the recent reduced rate of Arctic Sea Ice loss given that global ice mass loss has continued to occur?" (in addition to the links @124 see the EGU "Review article: Earth's ice imbalance" here which has the following in its Abstract "The rate of ice loss has risen by 57 % since the 1990s – from 0.8 to 1.2 trillion tonnes per year")
Similar to my question @124, the answer is not that human impacts have stopped significantly affecting the climate. And, as has been painstakingly pointed out by others, the recent lack of rapid reduction of Arctic sea ice does not mean that the recent rapid reduction of Arctic sea ice due to human induced global warming has ended.
That raises another question. "Why is the admittedly unusual temporary reduction of the rate of Arctic Sea Ice loss being focused on so relentlessly when global ice loss has continued to occur rapidly?"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:40 AM on 21 April 2023EGU2023 - Upcoming presentations in Vienna
prove we are smart,
I agree in general with your comment and the presentation by Prof. Kevin Anderson, University of Manchester you linked to. The following is in response to the question you ended your comment with.
I would caution against simplistically claiming that ‘the 1%’ or ‘the Davos WEF group’ are ‘the problem’. The fundamental problem is the success of more harmful Populist political game players (Note: Populism is fundamentally misleading, but some of the misleading political players are less harmful regarding climate change). Refer to the SkS re-posting of the Thinking is Power item “Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial” and my comment @6 on that posting. (SkS can be understood to have been formed in response to the successful misleading marketing by conservative populists trying to preserve and grow their undeserved perceptions of status and superiority).
Not all of the wealthiest 1% are the problem. The problem is the harmful populist portion of the wealthy and the supporters they have gathered by being misleading about climate science and the required rapid changes of what has developed (note that the harmful populists are harmfully misleading about many matters, not just climate change). And harmful populist people can be found to different degrees in almost every nation, not just the richest and highest climate change impacting nations.
It does appear that the Davos WEF group are doing less than they could to reduce the climate change harm done (they harmfully compromise what could be done). So it is fair to point that out. But I have noticed that the harmful populists currently claim that the Davos WEF group are a threat because of the climate impact restrictions that are being discussed by that group. The conservative populists want more freedom, especially more sovereignty for regions they control to be as harmful as they please. They oppose the ‘globalist progressive improving understanding’ that has been developed collaboratively and collectively globally (like the IPCC results, the Sustainable Development Goals, or the Universal declaration of human rights). Their opposition is due to the reality that the understood actions required to develop sustainable improvements for humanity, to be less harmful and more helpful, require significant changes of their developed preferred beliefs and ways of living.
In closing and responding to: “Is dangerous climate change not really dangerous for the 1%?”
People focused on the pursuit of status relative to others can indeed not consider harmful consequences to be dangerous ‘for them’, especially if they believe those harmed have little ability to ‘do significant harm in return’. And that attitude can exist at all levels of wealth and status. And it is especially true regarding ‘future harmful consequences’ like the type created by accumulating climate change impacts. And those future consequences can be less of a concern if there is ‘doubt about the harm being caused’. Hence the harmful success of populist political players promoting ‘Big Lies’ and ‘Alternative Facts’.
-
BaerbelW at 04:32 AM on 21 April 2023Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
The blog post was updated on Apr 20 with the link to the latest rebuttal getting the "at a glance treatment": Positives and negatives of global warming
-
BaerbelW at 04:28 AM on 21 April 2023It's not bad
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on April 20, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @
https://sks.to/at-a-glanceThanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:46 AM on 21 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @150... I'm curious why you can't see what you're doing is selecting (cherry picking) short time frames out of a clear overall trend in order to fit a predetermined conclusion.
This is truly what I find so fascinating to witness. The sheer volume of well-established research and scientific evidence that has to be dismissed or ignored in order to come to such conclusions is staggering.
Anthony Watts I can understand simply because his income is predicated on keeping climate deniers coming to his website. People who don't have a specific monetary necessity, these I don't understand.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:35 AM on 21 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @149... So, I guess you're saying ice measurements before satellites weren't accurate unless you're trying to use pre-satellite ice measurements to reject research that you don't like. Right?
-
MA Rodger at 19:21 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @151,
If you start from 2003 you get a linear trend of -0.052M sq km/y, an even steeper decline.
Perhaps to assist you in this exercise (which is presently somewhat akin to the children's game 'Pin the Tail on the Donkey'), may I point you at the excellent JAXA Vishop webpage which provides 'graph options' that include 'annual graph' and 'draw linear fitting lines from visible region'. This will show you that all trends in this data for periods ending 2022 are declining for start-dates prior to 2015. Given the wobbly nature of the data, using just eight data points, this same facility shows the data yields other instances of non-negative eight-point-long trends in this data so such a short period is entirely unrepresentative.
Moderator Response:[BL] You're doing this wrong. You're not supposed to do actual statistical analysis on the data. If you look at the monthly values, not annual, there is a lot more noise, and you can then use your eyecrometer to just look at the graph (ignoring the "draw linear fitting" button), and then your Morton's demon will filter out any signal that shows a decreasing trend and you can convince yourself that it looks like 0 trend.
(HTML badly needs a sarcasm tag.)
-
Albert at 17:20 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
I do look at JAXA data and it evidently has "decreased since 2006" in that the JAXA annual average SIE 2006-22 has a linear trend of -0.032M sq km/y"
I was wrong, if you start from 2003 instead you will see that JAXA data linear trend shows 0 change.
Moderator Response:[BL] So, to make your point, you start looking for outliers and cherry picking certain times to get the result you want? Classic use of the techniques illustrated in The Escalator (updated version).
-
Albert at 17:00 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
The Kinnard has Arctic ice extent increasing from about 750 to 1500 which is an absurdity. Vikings colonised Greenland about 980 and farmed some areas that today are permafrost.
But the graph shows 980 ice extent to be about the same as 1700 and by that time the areas farmed were permafrost.
The graph shows ice extent dropping dramatically from about 1400 but the little ice age was ramping up in 1400, not down.
The graph shows ice extent increasing dramatically from about 1600 but the LIA peaked around 1650-1700 and temperatures have risen sporadically ever since. The Central England Temperature database correlates well with this.
Here is a different reconstruction that shows 1940 Arctic ice to be about the same as
[LINK]
See figure 1bBut the guy was italian and what would they know? See, I can be sarcastic as well.
Moderator Response:[BL]Link breaking page formatting shortened.
Your Greenland myth is covered in this post.
You have already been pointed to places where your poor understanding of the Medieval Warm Period is covered.
You can correct your misunderstandings about the Little Ice Age by reading this post.
The Van Achter reconstruction that you show uses climate model data fitted to recent sea ice data to extrapolate values into the past and future. They also state "The Canadian Archipelago region was removed from the dataset since SIT reaches unrealistic values in this area." They also state "For the variability analysis, the trend and seasonal cycle are removed from the time series (pan-Arctic SIV and gridded SIT)".
Have you considered how this selection of data might influence the result? The authors have. In their conclusions, they state:
This analysis of the Arctic SIT and SIV variability bears some limits. Indeed, our results for the temporal and spatial patterns of variability are based on only one model, and despite the use of 30 ensemble members and a reasonable validation against observations, the model is not perfect. Furthermore, the spatial modes of SIT variability are robust for all the 30 ensemble members, but the temporal analysis shows some dissimilarities between members. Other studies with other model outputs are therefore needed to confirm our conclusion.
Given that you reject climate models entirely, I am surprised that you would be so convinced that a reconstruction based on one is the most reliable indicator of past sea ice conditions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:44 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
"...the trend has probably plateaued."
And that is what we call a baseless assertion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:42 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
"The graph above showing Arctic ice just shows reconstructions because there was no accurate way to measure total Arctic ice before satellites."
Oh ye of little faith is the cleverness of smart researchers.
-
Albert at 15:42 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Thanks for the insert advice, it was driving me bananas.
-
Albert at 15:40 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
finally managed to insert it.
if you look at average extents, it can be seen that from about 2007 the trend has probably plateaued.
if satellites had been operating from 1940, the downward trend would be Far less.
The most accurate extent measuring satellite is MASIE which measures in 16km2 blocks rather than the 225km2 blocks of SII and it shows Arctic extent plateauing from 2006.
From memory I think JAXA and the University of Bremen have the plateau starting even earlier.
Moderator Response:[BL] Here we see the effects of confirmation bias plus overconfidence in one's opinions. In spite of earlier saying "there was no accurate way to measure total Arctic ice before satellites." as a way of rejecting data covering the 1940 period that he does not like, Albert is now asserting his confident opinion that if such data existed, he knows what it would show.
And again he inserts "has probably plateaued" instead of actually doing any sort of real statistical analysis.
I expect Albert has also not noticed that the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, which severely limits the winter maximum ice extent. There are well-understood reasons why winter extent does not show as much variation as summer extent. But as long as Albert can average away the strong decline in summer extent - which disagrees with his confirmation bias - then averaging it will be!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:36 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
I'll note that all the trend lines in both these graphs are showing ice loss. Anything on shorter scales, up or down, is merely noise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:33 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Also, be sure to check the image size on the "appearance" tab. Make sure to restrict the image to 500px width.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:32 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Second tab says "insert." See the picture of the tree? Click that and... voila!
Your problem is that you need to have a direct link to the image, not just the page. Right click the image (control+click on a Mac), then select open the image in a new tab. Use that URL.
-
Albert at 15:30 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
. -
Albert at 15:26 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
I tried to insert a graphic from DMI showing Arctic ice extent from 1979 but without success.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
The URL shows a decline of about 15% from 1979 to about 2012 but unfortunately most warmists only refer to the minimum monthly values rather than all the data.
Its like only giving January rainfall totals instead of the yearly totals.
The graph above showing Arctic ice just shows reconstructions because there was no accurate way to measure total Arctic ice before satellites.
I could show you reconstructions showing significantly different trends but I know it would be a waste of time.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.As for your assertion that yearly totals should be looked at, not January (for rainfall) - if the goal of an analysis is to look at crop production in Australia, then January precip is probably much more informative than annual totals.
Any argument of "all the data" is usually bogus. For Arctic sea ice, you don't include seasonal ice cover in the tropics, either. You don't divide the ice area by total ocean area (or the area of the globe). Every scientific analysis requires the use of relevant data. You have not provided any argument as to the relevance of using annual totals.
As for offering to show "reconstructions showing significantly different trends", you fail if you do not show that the "significantly different" claim is supported by actual, real statistical analysis. You know: the kind of things that real scientists do.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:21 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @139... Would you like a quick tutorial on how to post images here?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:18 PM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
If one thinks about how Albert is trying to frame this, it makes no sense. I've heard the same tripe from other deniers over the years; he's not the first to come up with this.
He's trying to re-frame the question from "in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW" into "in order to determine the percentage of research papers that endorse and quantify human contribution to GW as >50%."
It's quite a nonsensical and pointless framing of his (their) own creation that bears no relevance to anything that would have the least bit of interest to anyone.
Once again, it is fascinating to watch such entrenched, intractable displays like this.
-
Albert at 15:11 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
linear trends have their uses but can be misleading and if the above trend had a 12 month filter, that would give a more realistic interpretation of Arctic ice trend.
the start and stop times of linear trends can heavily influence what a trend looks like and the assumption that Arctic ice is on a permanent downward spiral rather than cyclic is just speculation.
The end of summer Arctic ice has been predicted regularly since 2006 by the top Arctic experts but it never eventuates.
Moderator Response:[BL] Your baseless assertion about predictions of the end of arctic summer ice needs to be backed up by specific references.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:03 PM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert... I think you should take a moment to read the comments policy for this site. Accusations as you've just leveled are against policy.
As for your question, no one was trying to hide anything. The data is there available for anyone who wishes to dig into it. But it's not really relevant to the results of the paper. It just creates fodder for people like you whose intent is to misinterpret the data.
Regarding the AMS paper, different from the Cook paper, that research was about the opinions of their members. As already stated, the paper was structured similar to Doran/Zimmerman where the subjects had varying degrees of expertise in the subject matter. Once you got to publishing PhD level scientists, yes there was a consensus in the 97% range.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:29 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@933... Missed this one: "The only 'evidence' for the positive feedback theory are models which are trying to model something where many variables are only guesstimates."
Incorrect.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:24 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"But Michael Mann showed us in his model that the medieval warm period and little ice age never existed so all those thousands of scientists that proved they did exist must be wrong."
a) Please look up the definition of the word "heterogeneous."
b) Assuming you're talking about MBH98/99, that was nearly 25 years ago and their research only went back too the MWP. Perhaps you should catch up on more recent research.
(Yes, this is quickly veering off-topic... as one would expect.)
Moderator Response:[PS] Any further discussion on this thread that is not about the consensus will be deleted.
[BL] Discussion of the Medieval Warm Period should go on one of these threads:
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:18 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@934... "believe it or not there are other factors that effect global temperature like, the sun, solar winds, magnetic fields, cosmic rays...(etc., etc.)."
This is starting to gish into a big gallop.
If you're going to accept low CS figures then you also need to accept high CS as well, otherwise you're just cherry picking your preferred conclusions without considering the full body of research.
There are good reasons to believe the high CS figures have low probability, as there are even stronger reasons to believe low CS figures are improbable.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:12 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@933... "Many scientists believe that the positive feedback theory because of any temperature change in the atmosphere is grossly overstated and some even think the feedback is negative."
Yes, members of the infinitessimal group of dismissives whose research is so bad that it can't get published in decent journals.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:09 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"The 2016 American Meteorological Society conducted poll of their members..."
(sigh) So, you're going to misinterpret this research as well?
Read that paper again, please. The conclusion was that the AMS needed to do a better job of educating their members. It was set up much like Doran/Zimmerman showing how agreement with human causation increased with greater levels of expertise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:06 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@932... "How can you misinterpret a plain English statement saying 'explicitly endorses >50% of warming is human induced'?"
Yes, this is indeed the exact sentence you're attempting to use to reject the conclusions of the paper. Remember, the conclusion of the paper is that 97.3% of the research agrees that human activities are primarily responsible for global warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:03 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@931... "This puts them in category 2 or 3 and not category 5,6 or 7."
Nope.
Rejecting well established feedbacks in favor of an unsupportable idea that ECS is 1.2°C is clearly minimizing human contribution since it's abundantly obvious that CS is higher just based on warming to date.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@930... And that is your disingenuous interpretation of the paper. Everyone else understands this statement is what defines the endorsement categories relative to endorsement vs minimizing.
-
Albert at 09:57 AM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
"BL] In the absence of an argument from you that short-term variations actually indicate a departure from long-term trends, there is nothing to challenge."
You keep misinterpreting the point I am making is that Arctic ice thickness and volume stopped shrinking at least 11 years ago, I made no other claim.
What do you mean by a "long term trend"? the Satellite measuring of Arctic ice and global temperatures started in 1979 and we know that global temperatures reduced from about 1940 until the mid 1970s and we know that Arctic ice is sensitive to global temperature so it is logical to believe that Arctic was low in 1940.
I will find some evidence that scientists believed Arctic ice was low in 1940 but I suspect that even if I did, you wouldn't acknowledge it
Moderator Response:[BL] Your claim that volume "stopped shrinking" is a claim that things have changed from a previous trend. To support that claim, you need to provide statistical analysis that the short-term data is not within the normal variation of that long-term trend. Simply asserting a claim over and over is not valid support.
Look at your own graph from your original comment, repeated here for convenience:
.You do see how the data you presented drops from +7 to -7 over the past 40 years? You do see that the data over the past decade is within the error bars of that overall trend? You do understand the statistical importance of trends, error bars, etc?
You have also been previously pointed to a link that discusses the myth about low ice amounts in the 1940s. It is not logical to believe that ice was low in 1940 when evidence says that it was not.
-
Albert at 09:46 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"Such low ECS figures would mean the earth's climate should be almost perfectly stable over geologic time (no glacial-interglacial cycles) and we know that's not true."
Rob, believe it or not there are other factors that effect global temperature like, the sun, solar winds, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, transportation and retention and expulsion of ocean heat, volcanic activity above and below water, aerosols, clouds, gravitational pull of other planets, milankovitcg cycles, earth rotation wobble, shifting of poles, etc.
Our current warming cycle started around 1700 as The little ice age peaked negatively and we have been warming sporadically ever since.
its all perfectly normal with many historical precedents in the Holocene and previous interglacials.
1000 years ago Vikings colonised and farmed parts of Greenland that are still permafrost today. How can this be unless Greenland was far hotter than today. etc Etc etc.
But Michael Mann showed us in his model that the medieval warm period and little ice age never existed so all those thousands of scientists that proved they did exist must be wrong.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is getting offtopic and you are now trying gish-gallop of long debunked myths in violation of comments policy. Use the search function to find the appropriate myth and post your evidence from reputable source if you wish to dispute it. Without supporting evidence, you are simply engaging in sloganeering.
It takes a certain chutzpah to believe that scientists have somehow ignored other factors. Try reading the Attribution chapter of the IPCC report to form an informed opinion. Similarly, the ice age cycle is well-understood which even cursory reading would show.
Since you dont appear to be to learn, we can only assume that you are trying to persuade us to a different opinion. Trying to change the mind of well-informed people means becoming well-informed yourself. Repeating nonsense doesnt do that.
-
Albert at 09:26 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"Dismissing feedbacks is an assertion of blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You just have to read the body of research."
I haven't dismissed any feedbacks, only the belief that they can be accurately measured. Many scientists believe that the positive feedback theory because of any temperature change in the atmosphere is grossly overstated and some even think the feedback is negative.
The only "evidence" for the positive feedback theory are models which are trying to model something where many variables are only guesstimates.
I programmed process computers for over 20 years and have a reasonable understanding of how models work.
If you you gave me the source code and runtime variable values of any model that purports to ""prove" positive feedback theory, I could show you in a short period of time that by adjusting these variables, any desired output could be achieved.
Moderator Response:[BL] The snipped portions represent accusations that the people developing climate models stick in any number they want, to achieve a desired result. That may be the way you code programs, but it is not the way climate modelers work.
Unless you can back up that serious accusation with proper references, future accusations will be deleted.
-
Albert at 09:13 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"What you're doing is disingenuously trying to misinterpret one sentence in the paper, ingoring the rest of what is clearly explained, in order to justify your personal need to reject the conclusions."
How can you misinterpret a plain English statement saying "explicitly endorses >50% of warming is human induced"?
I reject "your conclusions" not "the conclusions"
The 2016 American Meteorological Society conducted poll of their members in 2016 asking them if they believed humans were contributing to global warming was happening and 96% said yes. I would also have said yes and every sceptic I know as well. It was pretty much the same as Cooks categories 1,2 and 3.
But unlike Cook, they asked directly if they believed humans were the main cause of global warming and 67% said yes. This question was equivalent to Cooks category 1.
Moderator Response:[BL] Last sentence underlined for emphasis.
Have you given any thought at all as to what that 67% figure means for the erroneous 1.6% number you keep going back to? Are you capable of any consistent argument?
-
Albert at 09:02 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"No, Albert. Most "skeptics" do not endorse the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming. They minimize human contribution to warming"
Sorry Rob, that is not what a I said. Most sceptics accept the primary greenhouse theory where ECS is about 1.2C but Not the positive feedback theory where ECS increases to 3-4.5C.
This puts them in category 2 or 3 and not category 5,6 or 7.
So it's not surprising that categories 5,6 and 7 have low numbers.
Moderator Response:[BL] And it has been pointed out to you that the categories in the paper relate to recent warming, not ECS. You are fundamentally not understanding what the paper looks at.
-
Albert at 08:54 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). [emphasis added]"
And category 1 fits that definition perfectly.And just 64 out of the 4000 explicitly said that human activity was the main cause of global warning.
Moderator Response:[BL] You keep repeating this basic mathematical error. There is no justification for using the number of papers from categories 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (and the small part of 4 that means "uncertain") as a single group that disagrees with category 1.
Until you provide a justification for that grouping, future references to this calculation will be deleted.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:23 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
In order to come to the conclusions he is, Albert has to completely ignore this important statement in the introduction of the Cook paper.
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). [emphasis added]
This is the fundamental premise of the research. This explains why there are endorse vs minimize categories. Albert is laser focused on a misinterpretation of only one sentence in the paper, to the exclusion of all else, in order to confirm his priors.
As I've pointed out innumerable times over the decade since the publication of Cook, the "skeptics" are more than welcome to do the exact same research and see what results they get. And in that decade none of them have taken up that challenge, more often than not coming up with lame excuses why they can't or won't.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:28 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@923... I'd agree with BL that the last sentence there is a quantification of >50%. But it's a moot point. Whether one were to put it in category 1 or 2 matters not, since both of those categories are endorsements of the idea that humans are the primary cause of modern warming.
So, one more time, the entire exercise this paper engages in is to separate research that endorses the position that humans are primarily responsible for warming and papers that minimize human responsibility. That is the very structure of the rating system. That is the fundamental premise stated in the title of the paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Papers either endorse AGW or they minimize it. If a paper claims that the direct effects of CO2 are too small compared to other natural factors that is a minimization of the anthropogenic element of global warming.
Moderator Response:[BL] For what it is worth, here are definitions for "mainly" and "main", from wiktionary.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mainly
1. Chiefly; for the most part.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/main#English
1. Of chief or leading importance; prime, principal.
2. Chief, most important, or principal in extent, size, or strength; consisting of the largest part. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:12 AM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert... Again, this is a great opportunity for a bet. I'd bet you, in 10 years, the decadal average (pick your ice metric) will be lower than the current decadal average.
Remember... Cooling is going to start right now! ;-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:04 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@922... No, Albert. Most "skeptics" do not endorse the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming. They minimize human contribution to warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:03 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@921... "please stop throwing in red herrings like "minimise" and tell me why my direct quote is wrong?"
How can it be a red herring when it's written extensively into the paper?
What you're doing is disingenuously trying to misinterpret one sentence in the paper, ingoring the rest of what is clearly explained, in order to justify your personal need to reject the conclusions.
I'm continuing to engage with you on this topic because I find this very phenonenon utterly fascinating. I don't think you're at all a stupid person, but you seem to have a fanatical need for a particular conclusion. This is precisely what climate denial is. And it is precisely this weakness of the human mind that science has developed to compensate for.
Compared to most scientific research this Cook paper is a relatively simple experiment. It's also very simple to understand. The paper went through an extensive review process with lots of tough questions from reviewers. It was published in a respected journal. The conclusions are robust and since have become even more so.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:52 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @920... "...but if you believe that feedbacks are "well known" pleas provide an exampl that is not ambiguous."
a) You've accepted that the direct effect from doubling CO2 would cause 1.2°C of warming, therefore there would be some loss of ice cover and some increase in water vapor, both producing additional warming.
b) We have currently raised CO2 levels by about 50% and already seen about 1.2°C of warming in the modern era.
c) Such low ECS figures would mean the earth's climate should be almost perfectly stable over geologic time (no glacial-interglacial cycles) and we know that's not true.
d) CO2+feedbacks (~3°C) explain a great many other geologic effects related to temperature including the gradual fall in global temp over the past 60my.
Dismissing feedbacks is an assertion of blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You just have to read the body of research.
-
MA Rodger at 23:43 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @133/134,
Simply accepting anecdotal evidence from newspapers is not the way to determine historical Arctic ice conditions.
There are serious attempts to create records running back before the instrument era, like Walsh et al (2017) 'A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850' which is the subject of the CarbonBrief article linked @131 with the graphic @132. A little more recently there is Schweiger et al (2019) 'Arctic Sea Ice Volume Variability over 1901–2010: A Model-Based Reconstruction' which reaches similar conclusions, the graphic below from that paper showing rolling annual averages of Arctic SIV and annual red dots.
I would suggest you read the comment @123 if you feel that "no one has challenged the fact that Arctic ice thickness or extent has not dropped since 2012." And I do look at JAXA data and it evidently has "decreased since 2006" in that the JAXA annual average SIE 2006-22 has a linear trend of -0.032M sq km/y, a smaller decline than for the earlier part of the record (-0.51Msq km/y) but still a decline. So it has "dropped."
-
Eclectic at 23:28 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @921 & other posts ,
Evidently, you have not read the second part of the Cook 2013 paper, where it clearly shows your "1.6%" figure is so grossly wrong about the consensus. So grossly wrong, that it is difficult to believe you are being serious.
Likewise, you seem suspiciously uneducated about feedbacks/ runaways.
Just to throw you a bone : note that the global surface temperature has increased ~1.2 degreesC over about 170 years & an atmospheric CO2 rise of 50%. Try your math on that.
