A scientific hypothesis is not determined by consensus opinion
What part of this do you not understand?
Infact a hypothesis only needs to be proven invalid once
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
What part of this do you not understand?
Infact a hypothesis only needs to be proven invalid once
Your link, like your argument, is dead.
The chart is dishonest, the data is plotted wrong, leading to me to think it must be surface vs troposphere plotted.
Instead, its just dishonest in a different way, by messing with the baseline.
Your chart has serious issues, as do your claims.
And the idea of basing your argument about surface temperatures on projections for atmospheric temperatures.
Here is what the data looks when plotted properly.
As usual, larue, you're pushing bullshit.
Hardly
Dishonest
Again with the character assassination !!!
Stop doing that
these are scientists. Show them some god damn respect. Or are you learning from Trump?
You really do not understand this do you?. If the IPCC models are correct, then as Dr. christy points out the differences between the projected temperature change and atmospheric temperature change would be the same. The slope of the two data sets would have to align over a 20 year period & clearly they are not and are diverging
You have never taken any calculus have you?
Your entire hypothesis is based upon green house gases heating up the planet ie excess CO2 trapping radiation creating a greenhouse in the atmosphere.
You said in post #103
you claim the actual surface temp changes line up with the models ie the rate of change is indicated by the redline in Christy's graph
Dr. Christy's graph indicates a much slower rate of change in the atmosphere vs. the models and hence vs. the surface temperature (as you claim)
How can the greenhouse be heating up at a slower rate of change if it is the driving force behind rising temperatures?
You have never taken any calculus have you?
So you say
Why did you need to post a second graph? What was wrong with one you used in post #102
It paints a third different view
You have never taken any calculus have you?
Now answer the question put to you
Q1. Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
Do not post a link
State the value used in the IPCC models
I do not think you know the value
I do not think you understand what the number means
I do not think you understand what role it plays
Yes, that is the hypothesis, the greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824, by the way.
Feel free to try to dispute it.
The models line up quite well with the actual surface temperatures, as noted by this chart posted by the director of GISS, at NASA.
Feel free to post charts about the temperature in the clouds again, it really sums up your reality.
You posted a manipulated chart comparing projections of atmospheric temperatures.
So I posted a chart that shows the data correctly plotted, again by the head of NASA GISS.
Manipulated?
John Christy. He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
That is a pretty serious accusation against a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science from a very reputable University
Especially coming from you, a scientific no known nothing with a long record of deceiving others
In post 113 your wrote
Yet now in post #126 you are accusing a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science of doctoring charts
Grow up !
you are just like a child caught in a lie
Somehow I just do not believe your claim of manipulation, so lets look at the science
After all according to AOC we only have 12 years
Now answer these questions put to you
Q1. How can the greenhouse be heating up at a slower rate of change if it is the driving force behind rising temperatures?
Q2. Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
Do not post a link
State the value used in the IPCC models
I do not think you know the value
I do not think you understand what the number means
I do not think you understand what role it plays
Christy and Roy Spencer's work is questionable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
The chart you picked was manipulated to try to make a false claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...orite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems
I posted a chart with the correct presentation of the data from the head of NASA's GISS program.
Your allegation that NASA is manipulating charts is both more serious and totally unfounded.
I gave you the arguments and evidence Christy's chart is fucked, you've got nothing.
That's a really fucking stupid and nonsensical 'question'.
What 'greenhouse', what 'rate of change' and how is this 'greenhouse' the 'driving force'?
Your questions are as stupid as your arguments.
You are caught is a child's lie and acting like a child
Your hypothesis is Greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up. You stated this quite clearly
The greenhouse is our atmosphere
You stated the surface temperature rate of change is lined up with the IPCCs model predictions
However John Christy shows the atmosphere (ie the greenhouse) temperature rate of change is slower then the IPCC model predictions and thus slower than the surface rate of change
Therefore the greenhouse is heating up slower than the planets surface (and the IPCCs predictions) and quite a bit slower
You have called me a denier many times, therefore your claim is superior and 100% complete understanding of the science of climate change (despite the fact you are a scientific know nothing)
All I am asking is for is an explanation from someone who has repeatedly said they know best with 100% certainty
Now answer these questions put to you
Q1. How can the greenhouse be heating up at a slower rate of change if it is the driving force behind rising temperatures?
Q2. Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
Do not post a link
State the value used in the IPCC models
I do not think you know the value
I do not think you understand what the number means
I do not think you understand what role it plays
You slimy piece of shit
In post 113 your wrote
Now you are doing exactly the same thing when faced with some hard evidence
Just to be clear I have never alleged NASA is manipulating charts
Review the posts and state exactly where I said this
You can not because I did know Character assassination has no place in science
Now answer these questions put to you
Q1. How can the greenhouse be heating up at a slower rate of change if it is the driving force behind rising temperatures?
Q2. Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
Do not post a link
State the value used in the IPCC models
I do not think you know the value
I do not think you understand what the number means
I do not think you understand what role it plays
That's a really fucking stupid and nonsensical 'question'.
What you are trying to ask is why, according to your incorrect charts reality isn't matching the projections for the global temperature.
Your question is of course based on your believing your faulty charts and unwilling or unable to understand why they are faulty.
Because, as I keep showing you, the projections are actually matching reality quite well.
So our planet's climate, that you are calling 'greenhouse' is heating up at the rate it was projected to rise.
As shown by this chart posted by the head of NASA's GISS program.
Larue.
Your chart is bullshit, as I showed you.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...obal-Cooling&p=6335061&viewfull=1#post6335061
Either Christy or Gavin Schmidt and all of NASA are correct, the two charts showing the same information do not agree.
I showed you the problem with the Christy chart.
Are you accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying in his chart posted as a reply to Christy's faulty chart?
Why do you refuse to accept that the "consensus" is not opinion but the repeated conclusions of hundreds upon hundreds of independent studies?
Sorry but your insistence on ignoring scientific conclusions makes you as card carrying member of the denier club.
Obviously you need to go back to school and learn statistics !!
The Survey: finding the consensus
In March – April 2012 the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, with several other scientists, conducted a survey of approximately 6,550 scientists studying climate change. It was published as “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” by Bart Verheggen et al in the 19 Aug 2014 issue of Environmental Science and Technology (peer-reviewed). In April 2015 they published a more detailed report (used in this post).
This survey covered many of the frontiers of climate science. This post examines one the questions about the keynote statement of the IPCC’s most recent work at time of the study — Assessment Report 4 (AR4, published in 2007). {This is a correction from the original post, which looked at the headline statement of AR5, about all forcings}. From AR4’s Summary for Policy-makers:
“Most of the observed increase is global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
In 2013 the IPCC published AR5, which repeated this finding — but on page 884, in Chapter 10 of WGI: “We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b) {i.e., chapter 9 of AR4}, that more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
The PBL survey is the first I’ve seen to test agreement with both facets of these statements. First, how much of the global surface warming is caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of greenhouse gases? (Note AR5 referred to all factors; see “Details” below). Only 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. If we exclude the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, 72% agree with the IPCC. So far, so good.
Now for the second part of the statement: what is the certainty of this finding? That the IPCC gives these answers is one of its great strengths. Of the 1,222 respondents to the PBL survey who said that the anthropogenic contribution was over 50%, 797 (65%) said it was 95%+ certain (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”).
Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR4 keynote statement {and the similar finding in AR5’s chapter 10} at the 95% level typically required for science and public policy {Note: the last section added for greater clarity}.
Update: reconciling the PBL survey results with AR4 & AR5
Tom Curtis (attorney) posted a comment at Skeptical Science, that put the PBL survey results in the proper context of AR4 and AR5. Kudos to him for this excellent work!
From AR4’s Summary for Policy-makers: “Most of the observed increase is global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Published in 2007, this reflected the consensus at that time.
In 2013 the IPCC published AR5, which repeated this finding — but on page 884, in Chapter 10 of WGI: “We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b) {i.e., chapter 9 of AR4}, that more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
GHG being, of course the focus of proposed public policy changes to mitigate climate change.
AR5 shifted the headline SPM finding to “extremely likely” about “all anthropogenic forcings”. This was widely but mistakenly reported as an increase in their confidence level about anthropogenic warming. Even some (many?) climate scientists believed that the IPCC had increased its confidence level about anthropogenic forcings from AR4 to AR5 (e.g., this interiew with Prof Judith Curry).
Stand back I'm trying science.
Conclusions
Scientists, like experts of all kinds, often say they “just know” things for which there is uncertain or contradictory research. A massive body of research shows that such opinions are often wrong. That’s why we rely on the power of science to give more reliable answers, and on organizations like the IPCC to help us understand the current state of knowledge about climate change. The IPCC is a political entity, but it is the best we have.
But the challenge of climate change — and the trillions it will cost to mitigate — require a clear view of what’s known, with what degree of certainty. But instead we’ve been told increasingly fanciful tales of what “97% of climate scientists” believe, often things far beyond the most confident statements in the IPCC’s AR5.
This latest survey suggests that even the IPCC might not represent the consensus as accurately as previous surveys research indicated. Only 64% of climate scientists agreed that over half of the warming since 1950 was from anthropogenic factors, and only 65% of those had a confidence level of 95%+ — so that only 43% agree with the full keynote statement of AR5. That’s important by itself, and tells us much about the accuracy of what we read in the news media about climate science.
Many scientists have warned us of this problem.
Checkmate .. What a loser you are!
Furthermore others survey shows:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
Summary: In February 2014 I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full key statement of AR5 about greenhouse gases — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news. Also see the important update below.
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
Hey Porny.
You are full of shit, the authors of the study say you're totally wrong.
How does the PBL-study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?
The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
https://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming
You're still pushing bullshit.
See post #134
Fabius Maximus deserves credit for finding and analyzing the study. He notes that only 64% agreed that man-made CO2 was the main or dominant driver controlling more than half of the temperature rise. But of this group (1,222 scientists), only 797 said it was “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”. That’s just 43% of climate scientists who fully agree with the IPCC statement. This survey directly asks climate scientists, unlike the clumsy versions by John Cook, William Anderegg, or Naomi Oreskes that do keyword surveys of abstracts in papers and try to “guess”.
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.
The IPCC AR5 Statement:
“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”
— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons.
UPDATE: Curiously this new detailed study builds on a previous study by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, which was issued in 2014 and includes the same authors, as well as John Cook and a few others.[2] Jose Duarte responded to that first version, pointing out that many of the people surveyed worked in mitigation and impacts of climate change, (not climate “science” per se) which artificially inflated the results.[3]
Here my answer... Climate always change and earth warm and then cool then warm based this graph. Co2 raises and falls. Temp also raises and falls. CO2 is not the predominantly factor for global warming!
It the fucking .. sun, cosmic rays, and clouds !! And milankovitch cycles and that effect earth's climate predominantly.
Base on this historic graph there was 4 ice age in earth history . Also there was ice age as far as NEW York city in the past.
It part of earth natural climate cycle!
Now you quote this individual:Obviously you need to go back to school and learn statistics !!
The Survey: finding the consensus
In March – April 2012 the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, with several other scientists, conducted a survey of approximately 6,550 scientists studying climate change. It was published as “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” by Bart Verheggen et al in the 19 Aug 2014 issue of Environmental Science and Technology (peer-reviewed). In April 2015 they published a more detailed report (used in this post).
This survey covered many of the frontiers of climate science. This post examines one the questions about the keynote statement of the IPCC’s most recent work at time of the study — Assessment Report 4 (AR4, published in 2007). {This is a correction from the original post, which looked at the headline statement of AR5, about all forcings}. From AR4’s Summary for Policy-makers:
“Most of the observed increase is global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
In 2013 the IPCC published AR5, which repeated this finding — but on page 884, in Chapter 10 of WGI: “We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b) {i.e., chapter 9 of AR4}, that more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
The PBL survey is the first I’ve seen to test agreement with both facets of these statements. First, how much of the global surface warming is caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of greenhouse gases? (Note AR5 referred to all factors; see “Details” below). Only 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. If we exclude the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, 72% agree with the IPCC. So far, so good.
Now for the second part of the statement: what is the certainty of this finding? That the IPCC gives these answers is one of its great strengths. Of the 1,222 respondents to the PBL survey who said that the anthropogenic contribution was over 50%, 797 (65%) said it was 95%+ certain (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”).
Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR4 keynote statement {and the similar finding in AR5’s chapter 10} at the 95% level typically required for science and public policy {Note: the last section added for greater clarity}.
Update: reconciling the PBL survey results with AR4 & AR5
Tom Curtis (attorney) posted a comment at Skeptical Science, that put the PBL survey results in the proper context of AR4 and AR5. Kudos to him for this excellent work!
From AR4’s Summary for Policy-makers: “Most of the observed increase is global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Published in 2007, this reflected the consensus at that time.
In 2013 the IPCC published AR5, which repeated this finding — but on page 884, in Chapter 10 of WGI: “We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b) {i.e., chapter 9 of AR4}, that more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
GHG being, of course the focus of proposed public policy changes to mitigate climate change.
AR5 shifted the headline SPM finding to “extremely likely” about “all anthropogenic forcings”. This was widely but mistakenly reported as an increase in their confidence level about anthropogenic warming. Even some (many?) climate scientists believed that the IPCC had increased its confidence level about anthropogenic forcings from AR4 to AR5 (e.g., this interiew with Prof Judith Curry).
Stand back I'm trying science.
Conclusions
Scientists, like experts of all kinds, often say they “just know” things for which there is uncertain or contradictory research. A massive body of research shows that such opinions are often wrong. That’s why we rely on the power of science to give more reliable answers, and on organizations like the IPCC to help us understand the current state of knowledge about climate change. The IPCC is a political entity, but it is the best we have.
But the challenge of climate change — and the trillions it will cost to mitigate — require a clear view of what’s known, with what degree of certainty. But instead we’ve been told increasingly fanciful tales of what “97% of climate scientists” believe, often things far beyond the most confident statements in the IPCC’s AR5.
This latest survey suggests that even the IPCC might not represent the consensus as accurately as previous surveys research indicated. Only 64% of climate scientists agreed that over half of the warming since 1950 was from anthropogenic factors, and only 65% of those had a confidence level of 95%+ — so that only 43% agree with the full keynote statement of AR5. That’s important by itself, and tells us much about the accuracy of what we read in the news media about climate science.
Many scientists have warned us of this problem.
Checkmate .. What a loser you are!
Furthermore others survey shows:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
Summary: In February 2014 I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full key statement of AR5 about greenhouse gases — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news. Also see the important update below.
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.
More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
"Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.[1] Nova is based in Perth, Western Australia."
Nova is the author of The Skeptic's Handbook, a publication that purports to give climate skeptics "the tools [they] need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps."[3] The main contention of The Skeptic's Handbook is the claim that CO2 does not drive global warming. Nova's four arguments from The Skeptic's Handbook are:
Carbon dioxide isn't causing the observed warming;
Carbon dioxide doesn't cause warming;
The observed warming (that carbon dioxide isn't causing) isn't happening;
The carbon dioxide (that doesn't cause warming) is already causing as much of the observed warming (that isn't happening) as it can.
The handbook has been thoroughly debunked by John Cook's Skeptical Science website,[4] and also by DeSmogBlog.[5][6][7]
More recently Codling wrote a "Skeptic's Handbook II", which mainly attacks climate science with political arguments, such as "global bullies want your money".[8] Throughout the Skeptic's Handbook II, Nova adopts positions that are not falsifiable, hence unscientific; an example is "There is no consensus, there never was, and it wouldn’t prove anything even if there had been." The Handbook is a grab-bag of catchphrases and polemic.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova
I see, now it is from a right wing politically motivated individual, financed by Shell Oil, and who is qualified in "Molecular Biology". You are hilarious!! Just grow up!!
Again just answer this simple question:
Do you now believe that Climate Change is real?
I have noticed how you and the rest of the Climate Change Deniers who are 100% right wingers, have argued that it is fake. That represents 0.4% of all the scientists beliefs in this survey. Yet you try to boast that you are knowledgable. Just to verify what this article is about. This article is not a consensus about Global Warming, as only 0.4% of the scientists fall in that category. It is about Man Made GHG. So stop scoring own goals and going about at a tangent with bringing in the debunked opinions of a Molecular Biologist!! You are a loser by posting and referring to this article in the first place. If you do not respond to this I will keep on repeating the above question in bold. Okay??
No one is saying that The Sun, Cosmic Rays, Clouds etc. does not contribute to it. So then overall there is a greater warm up then there has been in the past. Even aerosols could help contribute to this warming effect. But CO2 is a big factor in it. When do you predict that we are going to have this next "Ice Age". Will it be as cold as the previous "Ice Ages"??Here my answer... Climate always change and earth warm and then cool then warm based this graph. Co2 raises and falls. Temp also raises and falls. CO2 is not the predominantly factor for global warming!
It the fucking .. sun, cosmic rays, and clouds !! And milankovitch cycles and that effect earth's climate predominantly.
Base on this historic graph there was 4 ice age in earth history . Also there was ice age as far as NEW York city in the past.
It part of earth natural climate cycle!
But overall you are agreeing with the Climate Change then??
