25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

[FAST]

Its so simple,...not

Missing in that: solutions proposed by economists who actually study it.

Scientists' solutions are often mechanical. And yes, they do work. Curtail the population, make energy more expensive, prevent people from using too much energy. Actually implementing some of those solutions... unpleasant side effects. Which is why politicians aren't willing to implement them. Some of the environmental economists' ideas aren't much more palatable, politically, but they're a little more realistic in terms of human interaction.

YEP,...comes down to reality,...which some don't have to be bothered with.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/08/13/can-climate-models-explain-the-15-year-slowdown-in-warming/

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

By the way, if you're going to accuse me of lying, you're going to have to find something to back it up. Maybe you want to start by letting us know how the search is going for the IPCC prediction of 15 years of "flattening" temperatures.

That's not the link you quoted.
Why can't you provide a link to the study you quoted?
Afraid of being caught out as a liar?

Show us this file, please.

 

[Prim0]

I'm just wondering what those of you who support the belief in Man-Made global warming are doing about it. How many have gone completely solar? What sacrifices are you making on a daily basis to help with this problem?? Have you forgone having children to reduce the population pressures on the planet? Hell, have any of you the dedication to mother Earth to kill yourselves rather than adding pressure to the limited resources available?

I hear many people state their support for man made global warming....but almost none of those people do anything about it other than buy a Prius and ask that others make sacrifices.

 

[FAST]

I'm just wondering what those of you who support the belief in Man-Made global warming are doing about it. How many have gone completely solar? What sacrifices are you making on a daily basis to help with this problem?? Have you forgone having children to reduce the population pressures on the planet? Hell, have any of you the dedication to mother Earth to kill yourselves rather than adding pressure to the limited resources available?

I hear many people state their support for man made global warming....but almost none of those people do anything about it other than buy a Prius and ask that others make sacrifices.

I'm sure all of the doomsayers have not only not sold their SUVs, and not sent them to be recycled,...if they did get rid of them.

A lot of talk,...but little action,...as usual.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm just wondering what those of you who support the belief in Man-Made global warming are doing about it. How many have gone completely solar? What sacrifices are you making on a daily basis to help with this problem?? Have you forgone having children to reduce the population pressures on the planet? Hell, have any of you the dedication to mother Earth to kill yourselves rather than adding pressure to the limited resources available?

I hear many people state their support for man made global warming....but almost none of those people do anything about it other than buy a Prius and ask that others make sacrifices.

I don't use cars or planes, just bike or walk. I only eat local food. No children. Don't heat my place. Refuse all plastic products. Don't use a computer or phone. Work only at daytime so don't need lights. And only see SP's who eat organic.

Using a prius won't save much carbon output.

 

[barnacler]

Eating local is almost certainly more wasteful of energy than otherwise. There's a reason why we import food from all over the place.

Found:

In order to maintain current output levels for 40 major field crops and vegetables, a locavore-like production system would require an additional 60 million acres of cropland, 2.7 million tons more fertilizer, and 50 million pounds more chemicals. The land-use changes and increases in demand for carbon-intensive inputs would have profound impacts on the carbon footprint of our food, destroy habitat and worsen environmental pollution.

It’s not even clear local production reduces carbon emissions from transportation. The Harvard economist Ed Glaeser estimates that carbon emissions from transportation don’t decline in a locavore future because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Less-dense cities mean more driving and more carbon emissions. Transportation only accounts for 11 percent of the carbon embodied in food anyway, according to a 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon; 83 percent comes from production.

 

[basketcase]

... Don't use a computer or phone. ....

I wonder if frank is trying to be sarcastic or if he believes what he writes.

 

[FAST]

I wonder if frank is trying to be sarcastic or if he believes what he writes.

I hope the part were he says he is not going to reproduce is not sarcasm,...!!!

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I wonder if frank is trying to be sarcastic or if he believes what he writes.

It was really hard to get a solar powered, non-plastic device but it was worth it.
It takes forever to convert from abacus to the web, but the world will thank me for my sacrifice.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Can you vet this info I got in an email below please? It say's the 97% consensus is false. (Note the lack of variety in the sources below - sorry couldn't cut and paste hot links but you can highlight articles, then right click and search in Google)



The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.
________________________________________
[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change(August 2013)
________________________________________
[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction(May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change(October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?(May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom(August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus"(February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
________________________________________
[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs(PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)
________________________________________
[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper(September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret(May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%(August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland(August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS!(May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped(November 18, 2014)

 

[Frankfooter]

Look at the categories.
journals - two energy magazines and an article that tries to claim that Cook's article should say 0.7% consensus, not 97.1%. No science involved, just opinions here.
media - a handful of authors on right wing papers, no science, just opinions.
weblog - references to crackpot denier sites, no science.

For instance, Richard Pol is listed there a number of times.
Richard Pol also said:

“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

So no, there is nothing legit there.
No links to legit scientific agencies, no legit science, no legit articles against the consensus argument, in fact nothing.

Think of it this way.
The IPCC reports contain works from 830 authors from over 80 countries.
This list has a handful of names of dubious credibility and this is the best they could come up with.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Look at the categories.
journals - two energy magazines and an article that tries to claim that Cook's article should say 0.7% consensus, not 97.1%. No science involved, just opinions here.
media - a handful of authors on right wing papers, no science, just opinions.
weblog - references to crackpot denier sites, no science.

For instance, Richard Pol is listed there a number of times.
Richard Pol also said:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

So no, there is nothing legit there.
No links to legit scientific agencies, no legit science, no legit articles against the consensus argument, in fact nothing.

Think of it this way.
The IPCC reports contain works from 830 authors from over 80 countries.
This list has a handful of names of dubious credibility and this is the best they could come up with.

Thank you.

Another person noted that Cook actually said that less than 1% of climate papers argued against AGW.

 

[Frankfooter]

Thank you.

Another person noted that Cook actually said that less than 1% of climate papers argued against AGW.

Correct.

And for the record, NOAA and NASA say there was never a pause in global warming.

"There is no discernible ... decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century," experts led by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wrote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...es-as-temperatures-rise-study-finds-1.3100345

And as NASA says.

The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

 

[GPIDEAL]

Frankfooter, help me with this one (I'm arguing with die hard Americans who equate AGW to a communist conspiracy).

Someone argued that the sun's output has varied, as a cause of warming.

Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter, help me with this one (I'm arguing with die hard Americans who equate AGW to a communist conspiracy).

Someone argued that the sun's output has varied, as a cause of warming.

Is there any evidence of that?

No.

I've linked a great site below for climate change questions. You can tell its legit in that they give you levels of explanations, from simple to more detailed and at all levels they will link you directly to the papers sourced. The science is explained clearly and the data is always available to back up their points. As they note, over the last 30 years solar activity has been a cooling force while the climate has been warming, so it can't be the cause of the change we are experiencing.

http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

[basketcase]

Frankfooter, help me with this one (I'm arguing with die hard Americans who equate AGW to a communist conspiracy).

Someone argued that the sun's output has varied, as a cause of warming.

Is there any evidence of that?

I'll answer because I used to find the theory interesting. The thought is that solar output is a causal factor in changing cloud cover and increased cloud cover which in tern changes the albedo of the earth. The sun has a couple cycles of varying length that may therefore have some impact. Unfortunately for the theory, the solar cycles are quite regular and don't match observations on global temperature. In addition, one of the leading scientists behind the theory has been exposed as describing his papers and testimony to congress as 'deliverables'.

Some description
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

[GPIDEAL]

I have another question, which is repeated by the critics.

How can CO2 affect GW when it's only a very, very, very small percentage of the atmospheric content?

(Arguments include: "It's only 4 molecules per 10,000 or 20 molecules per 10,000 or 4% of parts per million, which are NOTHING." Any validity here?)

 

[GPIDEAL]

No.

I've linked a great site below for climate change questions. You can tell its legit in that they give you levels of explanations, from simple to more detailed and at all levels they will link you directly to the papers sourced. The science is explained clearly and the data is always available to back up their points. As they note, over the last 30 years solar activity has been a cooling force while the climate has been warming, so it can't be the cause of the change we are experiencing.

http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Excellent website. Thanks.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'll answer because I used to find the theory interesting. The thought is that solar output is a causal factor in changing cloud cover and increased cloud cover which in tern changes the albedo of the earth. The sun has a couple cycles of varying length that may therefore have some impact. Unfortunately for the theory, the solar cycles are quite regular and don't match observations on global temperature. In addition, one of the leading scientists behind the theory has been exposed as describing his papers and testimony to congress as 'deliverables'.

Some description
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Fantastic. (You're a scholar and gentleman).

 

[Frankfooter]

I have another question, which is repeated by the critics.

How can CO2 affect GW when it's only a very, very, very small percentage of the atmospheric content?

(Arguments include: "It's only 4 molecules per 10,000 or 20 molecules per 10,000 or 4% of parts per million, which are NOTHING." Any validity here?)

Its akin to taking aspirin or cyanide.
Those will be a few ppm, but enough to help you or kill you.
The legal limit for driving is 8ppm alcohol (if my math is correct, and its late....).

Just as oceans have increased acidity by 0.1 pH since the start of the industrial revolution, but that's increasing acidity by 30%.
Projections are that acidity will increase by 150% by the end of the century, enough that it could endanger destroy shells on most shellfish.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?