OH,...you mean were the unemployable state that burning trees puts C02 into the atmosphere,...damn those guys ARE smart.
FAST
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
FAST
Speaking of smart, its very hard to understand what you are trying to claim with your typos and poor English skills.OH,...you mean were the unemployable state that burning trees puts C02 into the atmosphere,...damn those guys ARE smart.
FAST
I assume you are falsely implying that the well employed research scientists forgot to mention very basic elements of CO2 calculations?
Its all here, as long with quite a few other points that you probably aren't smart enough to consider yourself, or more likely weren't on the denier website you copied your claims from.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
That's the chapter on forestry and agriculture from AR5.
The information you claim isn't there, is there.
Go read it.
Would expect that cutting down the trees would also change how the earth absorbs or reflects the energy from the sun.OH,...you mean were the unemployable state that burning trees puts C02 into the atmosphere,...damn those guys ARE smart.
FAST
Albedo, that's the reflective quality, I seem to recall.Would expect that cutting down the trees would also change how the earth absorbs or reflects the energy from the sun.
You have to calculate the amount of carbon in burning the wood, the amount of carbon stored in the wood if its used as a product, the amount of CO2 turned to oxygen through photosynthesis and yes, the albedo depending on the land use after deforestation.
Its all in the IPCC report, of course.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
YEP,...but contributing factors like this do not garner head lines,...the unemployables rather stick to simply repeating over and over again about burning fossil fuels,...gets much more attention for them.Would expect that cutting down the trees would also change how the earth absorbs or reflects the energy from the sun.
Publications from the unemployables about stopping the destruction of the rain forest,...will not get the looney left and anti everything crowd much attention.
Still boils down to the unemployables maintaining their jobs,...in the same predicament as teachers,...unemployable.
FAST
They don't get headlines because its not the big story. Its a calculation and part of the figures, but its not the major source of CO2 right now.YEP,...but contributing factors like this do not garner head lines,...the unemployables rather stick to simply repeating over and over again about burning fossil fuels,...gets much more attention for them.
As you should know if you looked at the links.
I noticed you didn't quote the part of that same question that said, "Regardless of the cause...". That's the part that confirms the 89% number you cited earlier was wrong -- it wasn't in support of man-made global warming.Then you need to refer to the terms of the question...
No, my statement was that this is one of the surveys that confirms that thousands of scientists throughout the world believe natural causes are a significant factor.The problem with their question was the 150 year term. Its very clear and the consensus supports the fact that man made climate change has been the major forcing over the last 50 years. But in the previous 100 years while there was also man made climate change, but its effect wasn't as strong and it wasn't the necessarily the primary forcing and it makes answering the question trickier. Which is why if you read the answers you'd know that only 6% said it was from natural events, which is your claim.
(My official position, for the record, is that we don't know enough about the climate to know how man-made emissions may or may not affect it. It is that position that had basketcase jumping to the idiotic conclusion that I believe in gods and magic.)
As for the natural causes, it is true that six per cent of respondents said the warming was mostly due to natural causes. However, another 11 per cent said it is an equal split between human factors and natural causes, and 23 per cent said we don't know how much can be attributed to man-made or natural causes. That shows about 40 per cent of respondents believe natural causes play a significant role or may play a significant role, and that almost 30 per cent clearly believe natural causes play a significant role.
In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
Take that result and other findings (such as the divisions among the Geological Society of Australia, the divisions within the American Physical Society, the results from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, etc.) and we can easily extrapolate that there are thousands of scientists throughout the world that think natural causes are a significant factor -- as I said.
We can also clearly see that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
By the way, 80 per cent of the total respondents have at least a master's degree (52 per cent of the total respondents have PhDs). They're not exactly the rubes you've been making them out to be. In fact, I suspect most of them are more serious scientists than fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.
Obviously, those scientists have never heard your argument about Charles Dickens' coal mines. :thumb:But in the previous 100 years while there was also man made climate change, but its effect wasn't as strong and it wasn't the necessarily the primary forcing and it makes answering the question trickier.
SHIT,...No wonder everybody here accuses you of lying,...
Maybe basic elements of climatology,...but something you sure as hell weren't aware of.
I never said they ignored the burning of forest,...what I did say is,...that they do NOT mention the increase in C02 due to the loss of trees converting C02 to oxygen.
Much better for the unemployable to scream about burning fossil fuels,...and big industry, than 3rd world countries.
I don't need to read another report,...you seem to have all the time to waste,...but I have read numerous ones that confirm, that the increase in C02 ,...1/3 of it can be directly connected to deforestation.
Which would help explain why the unemployables contention that burning fossil fuels is what is causing their claim of global warming,...does NOT correlate to your cut and paste graphs.
FAST
Since deforestation is man-made, I suppose it doesn't make a difference that AGW is not related to increased CO2 in that respect.
Ha ha, good one.Those people in 3rd world countries are so inconsiderate, cutting down forests for farm land, subdivisions, malls, parking lots, factories, etc. wtf is wrong with living in a grass shack. Next they'll want SUVs, air conditioned homes, weekend vacations at the cottage. Sarcasm
Pictures of local old growth logging http://www.oddman.ca/archives/26538
I suppose one can make an argument for 'developing' countries that have no pollution controls or regulations (like China), although we might not be light years better.
No, your statement is shown to be bullshit by the report.No, my statement was that this is one of the surveys that confirms that thousands of scientists throughout the world believe natural causes are a significant factor.
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
Over the last 150 years.As for the natural causes, it is true that six per cent of respondents said the warming was mostly due to natural causes. However, another 11 per cent said it is an equal split between human factors and natural causes, and 23 per cent said we don't know how much can be attributed to man-made or natural causes. That shows about 40 per cent of respondents believe natural causes play a significant role or may play a significant role, and that almost 30 per cent clearly believe natural causes play a significant role.
Add that clause into your statement, otherwise you are intentionally misquoting the survey.
Its only over the last 50 years that man made activities have been confirmed to be the primary climate driver, the technically correct answer over 150 years is not to answer yes.
Its a bad question, as the survey noted.
From the survey itself:
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s
average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be
increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a
result.” The investigators received separate emails from six respondents who,
after completing the survey, indicating that the reference period chosen to
define global warming – i.e., the past 150 years – was not a good choice. All six
suggested that a better reference period would have been the past 50 years, as
this is the period for which human causation of global warming is most well
established. The extent to which other respondents shared this perspective is
unknown.
No, that is wrong.In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
You imply numbers that simply aren't there.
No, that's wrong.We can also clearly see that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Again, the finding of the survey was:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
Yes, but 20% are tv weathermen and amongst those who have a degree in climatology and contribute to the field the support was 93% support the IPCC position.By the way, 80 per cent of the total respondents have at least a master's degree (52 per cent of the total respondents have PhDs). They're not exactly the rubes you've been making them out to be. In fact, I suspect most of them are more serious scientists than fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.
You need to stop lying about the findings of this survey.
In fact, you're the guy who has never read the survey (notice your previous posting about the 89 per cent support for the "consensus", when the question wasn't about man-made global warming). You just keep lifting talking points from dishonest propaganda sites.Yes, but 20% are tv weathermen and amongst those who have a degree in climatology and contribute to the field the support was 93% support the IPCC position.
You need to stop lying about the findings of this survey.
First of all, I am not "implying" that 48 per cent didn't support the IPCC's position that human activity is the dominant cause of warming. The support for the IPCC's position was 52 per cent. Where did you study math?
Furthermore, the breakdown of researchers who are active in climatology only applies to 13 per cent of the respondents. Since 80 per cent of the overall respondents has at least a master's level education, it is clear that most of the respondents with post-graduate credentials are excluded from your separated numbers.
And let's not forget that your 93 per cent number includes "deniers" -- respondents who don't support the IPCC position. I still don't think you know the meaning of the word "consensus."
The consensus is a fairy tale.
Here's Frankfooter explaining the warming that occurred in the early part of the 20th century.
First, his quotes from May 9:
Today, we learn that human activities were only the primary driver during the last 50 years.
Somebody has a consistency problem. :biggrin1:
First, his quotes from May 9:
Now, his quotes from today:I'm saying that man made CO2 increases started in 1850 or so, increasing nearly exponentially to present day.
The effect at around 1850 was fairly minimal, as use built up. That combined with the 40 year or so lag in climate change reaction to CO2 increases combine to create the rise in global temperature we see now, with what the IPCC reports as CO2 increases being the dominant factor in temperature increases since 1950. It was the primary cause in 1020-1940, but its effect wasn't nearly as dramatic as the effects we see now.
So, on May 9, man-made CO2 emissions were the "primary cause" of warming in the early part of the 20th century.Its only over the last 50 years that man made activities have been confirmed to be the primary climate driver....
Today, we learn that human activities were only the primary driver during the last 50 years.
Somebody has a consistency problem. :biggrin1:
Pre-fucking-cisely. I know you somehow think that ignoring people talking out of their asses and instead listening to the experts in the field is a bad thing but that just shows how warped the argument is you're putting forward. If I want to know about cars, I ask a mechanic or an automotive engineer. If I want to know why my elbow hurts, I talk to a doctor. If I want to know about climate change, I talk to someone who actually studies it....
By the way, the results actually showed that 52 per cent of respondents supported the hypothesis. The 73 per cent number is specific to respondents who actively publish on climate research.
Neither is anything close to a "97% consensus." The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
73% (or 78% if you prefer) of climate scientists see human CO2 as THE MAJOR factor. 20% see it as A factor. Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.
A freakingly small segment support your 'natural' hypothesis.
Can't believe you still claim the study says otherwise. All you're doing is exposing your views as a joke.
FYI, the 93% number is made up of people who support the IPCC's hypothesis and people who don't support it.Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.
As for the 73% figure (which you only get after you remove 87 per cent of the respondents), that is a "strong consensus"? :Eek:
You and Frankfooter should have a race to see which one of you can be the first one to learn the meaning of the word "consensus."
The actual support for the IPCC's position among the membership (of which 80% has a post-graduate degree in this area of science) was 52%.
The claim that there is a "97% consensus" is false. It is nothing more than a fairy tale.
The majority of climate scientists are neutral on the issue or afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals such as losing funding or ridicule from peers. It seems to me the so called deniers are becoming more vocal than those who support the theory and it's now being reflected in popular opinion. What I do know is that there is not a consensus or even close to it and maybe we will finally have a debate instead of a proclamation.Pre-fucking-cisely. I know you somehow think that ignoring people talking out of their asses and instead listening to the experts in the field is a bad thing but that just shows how warped the argument is you're putting forward. If I want to know about cars, I ask a mechanic or an automotive engineer. If I want to know why my elbow hurts, I talk to a doctor. If I want to know about climate change, I talk to someone who actually studies it.
73% (or 78% if you prefer) of climate scientists see human CO2 as THE MAJOR factor. 20% see it as A factor. Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.
A freakingly small segment support your 'natural' hypothesis.
Can't believe you still claim the study says otherwise. All you're doing is exposing your views as a joke.
You realize your feeble attempt to be witty falls kind of flat when you actually open your eyes and look at the world?Those people in 3rd world countries are so inconsiderate, cutting down forests for farm land, subdivisions, malls, parking lots, factories, etc. wtf is wrong with living in a grass shack. Next they'll want SUVs, air conditioned homes, weekend vacations at the cottage. Sarcasm
Places like Brazil have destroyed far more of the world's trees than all of Europe & North America combined...
Well put,...and closer to reality than what is being posted here by anti everything crowd.The majority of climate scientists are neutral on the issue or afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals such as losing funding or ridicule from peers. It seems to me the so called deniers are becoming more vocal than those who support the theory and it's now being reflected in popular opinion. What I do know is that there is not a consensus or even close to it and maybe we will finally have a debate instead of a proclamation.
FAST
No.The consensus is a fairy tale.
That's not what the study found, they said:
The Heartland based claims are just wrong."These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
To claim otherwise is bullshit.
No its not, its backed up by five studies.FYI, the 93% number is made up of people who support the IPCC's hypothesis and people who don't support it.
97% of climatologists support the IPCC consensus views.
Its a fact and its even supported by the survey that you claimed disproved it.
You, sir, are the joke."These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
