Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings.
Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I say this because there are allegations that the data is being massaged and skewed, and there is real peer and political pressure to interpret in a certain way. Similar to how all the studies that were showing how dangerous and disgusting tobacco is were suppressed, or automobile safety tests, or Thalidomide. The scientific community via funding has a symbiotic relationship with the government, it cannot be denied.
Take a look at that survey where scientists were anonymous about their opinions on climate change – the majority could not agree on whether man was causing global warming, and the vast majority agreed that scientists cannot predict the climate, so what is the value of all the interpretations and the political prescriptions that come from that. Antarctica ice growth wasn't predicted at all. I recall in the 1970s people on the news saying Florida would be completely underwater by now. There is a LOT of conflicting information out there and calling skeptics "deniers" is insulting, which I'm just reflecting back to you.
You are a denier: "What if humans aren't even causing global warming" is settled science. We are.
When asked, “do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (manmade) causes?” slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed. Interestingly, more scientists “strongly disagree” than “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.
When asked, “do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (manmade) causes?” slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed. Interestingly, more scientists “strongly disagree” than “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.
Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings.
Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I say this because there are allegations that the data is being massaged and skewed, and there is real peer and political pressure to interpret in a certain way. Similar to how all the studies that were showing how dangerous and disgusting tobacco is were suppressed, or automobile safety tests, or Thalidomide. The scientific community via funding has a symbiotic relationship with the government, it cannot be denied.
Take a look at that survey where scientists were anonymous about their opinions on climate change – the majority could not agree on whether man was causing global warming, and the vast majority agreed that scientists cannot predict the climate, so what is the value of all the interpretations and the political prescriptions that come from that. Antarctica ice growth wasn't predicted at all. I recall in the 1970s people on the news saying Florida would be completely underwater by now. There is a LOT of conflicting information out there and calling skeptics "deniers" is insulting, which I'm just reflecting back to you.
There certainly were allegations, and those were investigated multiple times and found to be false.
Interesting that you bring up the example of tobacco - because it argues exactly counter to your position here. The parallel is that the studies were strongly indicating that tobacco was damaging to health, and the tobacco companies were claiming data manipulation and lack of proof - just like the current climate studies indicate global warming and the energy lobby is claiming data manipulation and lack of proof.
Research funding is not dominated by government - commercial companies are enormous funding sources for research in all fields, which is why it seems very significant that, even with all the money that oil, gas and coal companies pour into research, it has produced almost nothing to support their position on GW.
I'll say it again - if you want to know the scientific consensus on a subject then look at the literature. Polls are unreliable, but I'd point out that if you want to believe them, the vast majority of polls indicate an unprecedented consensus. The scientific community is generally able to distinguish trends from isolated data points, global from local, and understand the limitations of numerical simulation of complex systems, and that is why they realize that the anecdotes and local deviations and model predictions do not invalidate the science or the model fundamentals.
And finally - labeling scientists as minions for being scientists is vastly different to labeling people as deniers for denying the science. One is an ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit climatology, while the other is a simple observation of behavior.
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You're right. I don't know why we're even wasting our time with these people. Unfortunately the right in this country is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The Republican Party is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The problem with being a "business party" as they proclaim themselves to be is that they have to toe the ,ine of the biggest sectors. Those sectors line their election war chests, so even if they don't believe the crap, they have to mouth it.
Your comments show a significant amount of bias and hypocrisy, in such a blatant manner that it hardly even needs pointing out. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your constant derisiveness. You clearly have a preconceived notion of who you think I am, and what your thoughts on this argument are, such that you seem to be completely unable to engage effectively in discussion.
I am not projecting any bias except to be skeptical, which I have been very clear and straightforward about. I was not projecting bias regarding the example I pointed out. My example was a clear demonstration of how scientific evidence has been interpreted in a biased fashion that supported the 'story line' of global warming catastrophe. Not at one single point did I say, or even suggest, that "ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless." You have chosen to focus on a narrow point of my discussion, and ignore the other 80%. Regarding the current evidence (let's say 20% of what I'm trying to say): once again, I will say, that my point is not that the evidence is "worthless" but that it is an enormously complex issue, and we should be skeptical of people who have 100% conviction in what they are saying (given their utterly drastic implications), despite the fact that these same people have been wrong multiple times in the past. Much of the evidence may be on point, but is it only half of the story? Why do we never hear about studies regarding the compensatory mechanisms inherent in all natural systems? In addition, you claim that any opposing view is propaganda, but yet there is a clear propaganda campaign regarding global warming alarmism. Just because you see the cause as just, does not mean it's not propaganda. Nearly every day we're deluged with reports about how we're all going to die in short form. There are even studies being done suggesting we won't have enough cork trees, and thus will have to use plastic corks for our wine.. the horror! Who pays for this multitude of ridiculous studies? Any you say there's no bias?
Speaking of bias, you repeatedly accuse me of bias, but yet you seem to be the one who is biased. I do not know how you started bringing up the Kotch brothers, republicans, being part of the "business party," etc., but I think it's safe to say that you may be the one projecting bias here. I would challenge you to find evidence of me being biased. My view on climate change may be similar in some ways to those you perceive as biased, but I do not identify with those people for the most part. In addition, I've been using many scientific facts during the course of my discussion, verifiable facts which I encourage you to look up yourself. These facts come from my having a degree in biology, as well as being able to look up and analyze research data. Yet somehow you deride me as being a victim of "the propaganda they spew out." As I've said, I think environmentalism should be a top priority, and I believe that we would be truly better off, and the earth would be better off, if just one tenth of the resources being devoted to climate science was instead used to prevent habitat destruction, clean up pollution, etc. This is the main point I want to convey.
I suppose you've purchased quite a bit of carbon credits given your conviction that your actions (living in a developed nation) contribute substantially to global warming.
When considering the environment, I chose to support organizations like Conservation International, an amazing organization that does the hard work (rather than making grandiose proclamations) of working with local economies in developing nations (where most of the environmental destruction is taking place) to provide sustainable alternatives to habitat destruction and resource exploitation. I'd rather do this than buy carbon credits, or be forced to buy a certain type of light bulb.
I am also minded to detach the whole issue of climate change from the state of the environment.
There's obviously no doubt that we've destroyed and damaged huge swathes of natural habitat, one way or another. I'm very keen on preserving habitats and increasing existing ones, as well as creating new ones. And more trees!
But trying to discuss climate change dispassionately with anyone seems nigh on impossible where there is disagreement, which strikes me as a shame. I feel that a healthy skepticism is the best stance for now, as, given the history of mankind, we haven't done a very good job of predicting the climate, and it seems clear that there is an awful lot that we don't know concerning nature. It’s not a question of saying that data is right or wrong, but of how one interprets data. It’s incredibly easy to interpret what appear to be simple, concrete facts in two completely different ways. And trying to extrapolate everything into one final conclusion is extraordinarily difficult, to the point of impossibility.
I would suggest that all the variables that create climate are so numerous, that climate is essentially chaotic. We can observe trends, but trends have a habit of changing.
Your comments show a significant amount of bias and hypocrisy, in such a blatant manner that it hardly even needs pointing out. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your constant derisiveness. You clearly have a preconceived notion of who you think I am, and what your thoughts on this argument are, such that you seem to be completely unable to engage effectively in discussion.
I am not projecting any bias except to be skeptical, which I have been very clear and straightforward about. I was not projecting bias regarding the example I pointed out. My example was a clear demonstration of how scientific evidence has been interpreted in a biased fashion that supported the 'story line' of global warming catastrophe. Not at one single point did I say, or even suggest, that "ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless." You have chosen to focus on a narrow point of my discussion, and ignore the other 80%. Regarding the current evidence (let's say 20% of what I'm trying to say): once again, I will say, that my point is not that the evidence is "worthless" but that it is an enormously complex issue, and we should be skeptical of people who have 100% conviction in what they are saying (given their utterly drastic implications), despite the fact that these same people have been wrong multiple times in the past. Much of the evidence may be on point, but is it only half of the story? Why do we never hear about studies regarding the compensatory mechanisms inherent in all natural systems? In addition, you claim that any opposing view is propaganda, but yet there is a clear propaganda campaign regarding global warming alarmism. Just because you see the cause as just, does not mean it's not propaganda. Nearly every day we're deluged with reports about how we're all going to die in short form. There are even studies being done suggesting we won't have enough cork trees, and thus will have to use plastic corks for our wine.. the horror! Who pays for this multitude of ridiculous studies? Any you say there's no bias?
Speaking of bias, you repeatedly accuse me of bias, but yet you seem to be the one who is biased. I do not know how you started bringing up the Kotch brothers, republicans, being part of the "business party," etc., but I think it's safe to say that you may be the one projecting bias here. I would challenge you to find evidence of me being biased. My view on climate change may be similar in some ways to those you perceive as biased, but I do not identify with those people for the most part. In addition, I've been using many scientific facts during the course of my discussion, verifiable facts which I encourage you to look up yourself. These facts come from my having a degree in biology, as well as being able to look up and analyze research data. Yet somehow you deride me as being a victim of "the propaganda they spew out." As I've said, I think environmentalism should be a top priority, and I believe that we would be truly better off, and the earth would be better off, if just one tenth of the resources being devoted to climate science was instead used to prevent habitat destruction, clean up pollution, etc.
I suppose you've purchased quite a bit of carbon credits given your conviction that your actions (living in a developed nation) contribute substantially to global warming.
When considering the environment, I chose to support organizations like Conservation International, an amazing organization that does the hard work (rather than making grandiose proclamations) of working with local economies in developing nations (where most of the environmental destruction is taking place) to provide sustainable alternatives to habitat destruction and resource exploitation. I'd rather do this than buy carbon credits, or be forced to buy a certain type of light bulb.
You, as a biologist, are aware of the data wrt to the destruction of coral reefs, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Absolutely. Which study claiming 97 would you like disproven?
Was this:
A. You repeating the claim because repeating it a bunch of times makes it “true”
or
B. You repeating the claim and asking for a link to it, as well?
Please provide a link, since you didn't previously.
I am also minded to detach the whole issue of climate change from the state of the environment.
There's obviously no doubt that we've destroyed and damaged huge swathes of natural habitat, one way or another. I'm very keen on preserving habitats and increasing existing ones, as well as creating new ones. And more trees!
But trying to discuss climate change dispassionately with anyone seems nigh on possible where there is disagreement, which strikes me as a shame. I feel that a healthy skepticism is the best stance for now, as, given the history of mankind, we haven't done a very good job of predicting the climate, and it seems clear that there is an awful lot that we don't know concerning nature. It’s not a question of saying that data is right or wrong, but of how one interprets data. It’s incredibly easy to interpret what appear to be simple, concrete facts in two completely different ways. And trying to extrapolate everything into one final conclusion is extraordinarily difficult, to the point of impossibility.
I would suggest that all the variables that create climate are so numerous, that climate is essentially chaotic. We can observe trends, but trends have a habit of changing.
Thanks Benjamin! While I disagree with much of what you have said about Apple Watch, Tim Cook, and Beats, I very much appreciate your comments regarding this issue. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we recognized when our emotions were leading us astray of objectivity. The emotional urge to push us in a certain direction can be a had thing to fight, but we can't let ourselves sacrifice ideas for the sake of ideology.
Do you have a link that disproves that 97% of Climate Scientists agree that:
"climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities".
Source:
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
You, as a biologist, are aware of the data wrt to the destruction of coral reefs, right?
Please provide a link, since you didn't previously.
thanks
Yes, I've heard of that issue, of ocean acidification. I'm not familiar enough with this particular issue to debate details (although I'd be glad to hear them), but on the surface it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense that there would be localized acidification, whilst sparing reefs in other locations. I've heard of bleaching being an issue as well, I'm guessing due to thinning ozone? But that seems to be a separate issue from global warming for the most part.
Yes, I've heard of that issue, of ocean acidification. I'm not familiar enough with this particular issue to debate details (although I'd be glad to hear them), but on the surface it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense that there would be localized acidification, whilst sparing reefs in other locations. I've heard of bleaching being an issue as well, I'm guessing due to thinning ozone? But that seems to be a separate issue from global warming for the most part.
CO2 absorption is higher in warmer waters, hence higher levels.
Thank you for posting that. Interesting to read. However, with a cursory look, I see a lot of problems.
1) CO2 is a volatile gas, meaning that with increased water temp, more will evaporate into the atmosphere, not be absorbed in the water.
2) They used closed systems (tanks), which is hardly a substitute for the multitude of variables seen in situ, not to mention that there's nowhere for the CO2 to escape, so there's naturally going to be increased partial pressure (I didn't see where they accounted for pressure, although I may have missed this).
3) It turns out, moderate increase in CO2, such as they're predicting up until 2060 (again, assuming their typically flawed models are correct), results in a 30% INCREASE IN CORAL PRODUCTIVITY. It's not until "high" levels of CO2 are reached (supposedly somewhere between 2060-2090!) that activity drops off. This study could easily be interpreted as CO2 being positive for corals.
4) I don't see how this data explains current coral reef bleaching sufficiently.
As usual, in any scientific study, the devil is in the ^details^ methods.
I'd like to go over this some more. I have some things to do but I definitely plan on revisiting this thread soon.
Thank you for posting that. Interesting to read. However, with a cursory look, I see a lot of problems.
1) CO2 is a volatile gas, meaning that with increased water temp, more, will evaporate into the atmosphere, not be absorbed in the water.
2) They used closed systems (tanks), which is hardly a substitute for the multitude of variables seen in situ, not to mention that there's nowhere for the CO2 to escape, so there's naturally going to be increased pressure (I didn't see where they accounted for air pressure, although I may have missed this).
3) It turns out, moderate increase in CO2, such as they're predicting up until 2060 (again, assuming their typically flawed models are correct), results in a 30% INCREASE IN CORAL PRODUCTIVITY. Its not until "high" levels of CO2 are reached (supposedly somewhere between 2060-2090!) that activity drops off.
4) I don't see how this data explains current coral reef bleaching sufficiently.
As usual in any scientific study, the devil is in the ^details^ methods.
I'd like to go over this some more. I have some things to do but I definitely plan on revisiting this thread soon.
Cheers!
I made a correction and added a link in my previous post;
Here's another link that explains the phenomena, which is related to warmer water and expulsion of algae coral:
"At the foundation of the reef ecosystem is the interrela- tionship between coral polyps, an invertebrate marine animal, and zooxanthellae, tiny plants called algae that live inside the corals (Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994). Coral polyps provide the algae with nitrogen and phosphorous (waste products from the corals’ digestion of plankton and other foods) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the corals’ respiration, which the algae needs for photosynthesis. In return, the algae provide coral polyps with oxygen, nutrients, and their characteristic color (it is the algae that are pigmented, not the coral themselves). This symbiotic relationship also helps corals sustain high rates of calcification (the production of calcium carbonate), which forms their protective “skeletons” and is the fundamental building block of coral reefs.
Together, the corals and algae depend on a highly spe- cific environment (although there is some degree of vari- ability among certain species and regions).
Generally, coral reefs need:
• Warm, relatively consistent water temperatures (coral
reefs generally grow best between 77 to 84.2 degrees Fahrenheit, only a few degrees below their upper ther- mal limit, although the absolute range may be between 64.4 and 91.4 degrees Fahrenheit for some corals) (Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 89);
• Shallow, clear water to provide regular sunlight for pho- tosynthesis (maximum rates of growth and productivity occur between 16.4 to 49.2 feet) (Hopley and Kinsey, 1988; Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 13);
• Low levels of sedimentation, too much of which can restrict sunlight and smother the corals (Chou, 1991); • Relatively low levels of organic and inorganic nutrients
(corals receive much of what they need from their symbiotic algae);
• Consistent salinity [optimally about 35 parts per tril-
lion (ppt), with a range between 25 and 40 ppt]
(Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 13); and
• Shielding from excessive UV-B radiation, which can
damage corals’ DNA."
The CO2 link to Global Warming is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (from a increased partial pressure of CO2 than historically) which increases the total CO2 absorption of the Ocean, even at the higher water temperature. Warmer water breaks the symbiotic relationship with the coral, and more susceptible to dissolution from the acidification from increased CO2
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Okay, cool. Let’s look at them.
Oreskes
Here’s her assertion:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Personal note: I want to make my own comment regarding this quote before presenting the codified rebuttal. That 75% fell into the first three categories has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether the authors agreed with anthropogenic global warming. Only the first category regards agreement with the consensus in any respect; the other two would be relevant to the topic of global warming from any source. Perhaps I’m personally misunderstanding these categories, but given that her study is completely wrong, I don’t think that I am.
Anyway, continued.
Oreskes claimed her survey base to be 928 papers and of that 75% of abstracts reviewed explicitly agreed with the AGW ‘consensus’and that the remaining 25% did not object – assuming “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Oreskes’ statement about ‘consensus’ is that scientists in general agree with the IPCC third assessment report that: “In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities...”
Oreskeschart breaks down with no direct refutations of AGW. However, the lack of subjects refuting AGW does not mean there is consensus on what the impact, ratio, or cause of global warming/climate change may be. Further, the IPCC declaration is widely cited as the reference point for ‘consensus’ on AGW – but many scientists reject that declaration as will be shown in the following deconstructionist breakdowns of these surveys.
Peiser subsequently reran Oreskes’ experiment beginning with a base of some 1,117 abstracts and found only 13 abstracts that explicitly agreed with the IPCC AGW declaration. As highlighted by the red box in the chart shown below, most of the papers were unrelated to AGW, and only referred to the term ‘climate change.’ The next highest category of “implicitly agree” does not detail the broad range of scientific perspective; the papers stating natural factors were more influential in climate far outweighed those who explicitly agree with the IPCC declaration used in that survey. Two other categories of papers had no position stated on AGW or the IPCC declaration.
Doran & Zimmerman
Doran and Zimmerman surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists with the following two questions.
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Personal note: Of the 10,257 surveyed, 3,146 responded. Three thousand, one hundred forty-six is therefore the total pool of answers. Not answering can be considered ‘invalid data’, as there is no data to be considered valid, and thus we can toss ‘10,257’ as number. Thus, if you were looking for the answer “Yes” and 3,146 responded “Yes”, you would have 100% “Yes” votes. (Would you, personally, agree with this assessment? If not, why? That’s how statistics work.)
Upon review it appears that of the 3,146 respondents, only 79 were identified as ‘climate scientists’ (though no definition of ‘climate scientist’ or qualifications were ever provided). Of those, some 76 agreed with the opinion (‘risen’) in the first question: Q1: “When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
The question does not mention any human-caused reason for a rise in temperature, therefore it cannot rightly be said to show any consensus of the IPCC AGW declaration. Most geologists would agree temperatures have risen because since 1880 the earth has been warming out of the cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The cause is the subject of debate (and was not mentioned in the question).
Likewise, the second question by Doran and Zimmerman: Q2: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
The word "significant" cannot be quantified. The IPCC AGW statement is that GHGs cause more than 90% of the warming. The IPCC declaration singles out GHGs from human activity, but does not ascribe all human activity (which includes land disturbance, urban warming and black soot on snow, etc). Neither of the two questions mentions human-caused GHG emissions, so neither can evaluate the agreement with the IPCC AGW statement.
Nonetheless Doran and Zimmerman claimed a 97.4% consensus to this question – based on a “yes” response by 75 out of 77 self-identified ‘climatologists’ (the credentials of whom were never detailed). This would mean only 2.38% of 3,146 scientists agree with an undefined expression of AGW.
Excluded from the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey of earth scientists would be scientists in other relevant climate disciplines such as solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists.
Personal note: On the point in the last sentence, a growing number of solar scientists are predicting an increase in the possibility (notice not 97% of them believe this nor is there a ‘consensus’ by which to measure it) of another Maunder minimum in this century. The Maunder minimum was a period of abnormally low sunspot activity (to the extent that the sun would have no sunspots at all for extended periods) that coincided with the coolest global weather in the last 1000 years.
Sunspot records are one of the longest continually running points of data that humans have. I just think that’s really really neat. Anyone with a telescope can count and record sunspots, and since the invention thereof that’s exactly what we’ve been doing.
Anderegg
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC. We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.
Personal note: Yeah, that criterion? Rubs me the wrong way. Should rub anyone the wrong way. By this criterion, the paper Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen would have been thrown out, as Einstein had not published 20 papers by the time of its writing. To explain the importance thereof, ATOMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEEN AS BEING REAL–they would be nothing more than a CONCEPT in the minds of many–if this paper is thrown out. Anyway, back to the current paper.
Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community…
Personal note: Do you see a problem here? I see a problem here. Do you see a problem here?
We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. Our consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field, although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed prominent statements concerning ACC. Such expert analysis can illuminate public and policy discussions about ACC and the extent of consensus in the expert scientific community.
Personal note: This, well, I just explained this; it’s in their own words why they wanted “climate scientists” (quotes for quoting, not for mocking). Back to the codified response.
Anderegg… …evaluated by a review of what type of public statements scientists may have signed. A contributor to the IPCC report was automatically assumed to support the IPCC declaration. This is an unjustified assumption.
The Anderegg et al (2010) study was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), despite the fact that the authors were not members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Anderegg, the lead author, was an MA student at the time. PNAS accepted this study as a ‘contributed’ article from NAS member, the late Stephen Schneider. Any member of the NAS had, at that time, the right to submit 4 ‘contributed’ articles per year of which they had to be part of the design, but did not have to have done the research themselves. These submissions were reviewed by two qualified reviewers of the contributor’s choice.
By contrast, the PNAS has a very stringent “Direct Submission” peer- review process that a ‘contributed’ article does not go through. However, by the very fact of its publication in the PNAS, a ‘contributed’ article garners the same high profile and assumed level of scientific diligence for the uninformed reader, as a stringently, blind peer-reviewed Direct Submission paper.
Anderegg’s 100 “most cited” authors. Not the full scope of the study they did, no sir. The 100 “most cited” (referring to the aforementioned cutoff of publication). This is where they got their “97%”.
Anderegg’s entire study. Scientists don’t throw out data.
Additional info
Personal note: Since anthropogenic supporters love to point out (or fabricate) association to groups they (themselves, not through the scientific process, legal process of ‘reasonable doubt’, or with any other dispassionate measure) feel will render an opposing viewpoint moot or irrelevant, it is important to note potential omissions (or “omissions”) of information and association among anthropogenic supporters, as well.
Oreskes - At the time Naomi Oreskes published her first work, she was a Member of the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council Committee on the Use of Models in Regulatory Decisions-making 2004-2007. This was not stated in her Science Magazine article.
Doran and Zimmerman- Margaret K. Zimmerman was a student of Peter Doran. She took a short questionnaire of Doran’s offered in a geology class and expanded the questions to form her MA thesis. The conclusions published by Doran and Zimmerman in Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union’s weekly magazine which includes peer-reviewed itemsdo not appear to reflect the diverse results she herself reflected upon in her original thesis.
Anderegg et al (2010) - This paper was ‘contributed’ to the PNAS by NAS member Stephen Schneider. He was an early proponent in the 1980’s of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a means of stopping global warming. He was founder and editor of Climatic Change journal. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Personal note: Neither ‘climate scientist’ nor ‘consensus’ seems to be defined in any of these three papers. That’s… sort of the point, isn’t it?
Finally, you have to remember that consensus is meaningless to either science or truth. You can have 97% belief that reactionless thrust is impossible, with thousands (or, in the case of reality, dozens) of papers claiming thus, but as soon as one person makes a reactionless drive, that consensus is instantly, irrevocably wrong.
I’ll give you more information on these papers if you’d like. I was also sort of hoping that the NASA page would cite “Cook, et. al.”, but perhaps even they recognize how disgustingly wrong that pile of garbage is.
Final note: I wonder (worry, rather) about peer-review in climate science not being double-blind. Can I say the phrase ‘confirmation bias’ and be taken seriously, or are those words illegal these days?
Acronym Guide
AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming
ACC: Anthropogenic Climate Change (confusingly, used by the the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd)
It would have been better if you had attributed that, up front, to the Friends of Science article published by heartland.org. Unattributed material is generally regarded as plagiarism in scientific debate. Either way, it is an unsubtle attempt at obfuscation. The article "97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS. The “Science” of Statisticulation", made an attempt to argue that consensus did not exist by questioning the validity of the samples and categorizations which, on the face of it, is a reasonable check to make. It presents, with varying levels of persuasiveness, potential issues with all of the studies, but then conflates potential issues with wholesale rejection of the studies.
For example, one of the Anderegg questions concerned whether the respondents were convinced or unconvinced by the evidence. The article rejects the results because it does not "describe to what extent or what cause convinced these scientists". This kind of arbitrariness (quaintly referred to as deconstructionism) pervades the entire article and, by slight of hand, manages to claim a reduction of the level of support from the 97% in the title to as little as 0.5%. The slight of hand in question is primarily to recast the question to one not actually asked, and then, based on that, change almost all potential support to "no position", or to question the validity of the choice of respondent pool.
Of course, unable to get around the inconvenient fact that there are still no credible, published studies countering the current GW evidence, it resorts to the same old accusation that there is no funding available to GW skeptics. Apparently none of the coal, oil or gas companies are willing to provide research funding to demonstrate that their businesses are not responsible for GW or, even better, that it does not exist.
It finishes by devoting several pages to the horror of being humiliated and ostracized by the scientific community for disagreeing with the consensus position - that it just spent much time arguing is not the consensus position. The implications of that contradiction appear to be entirely lost on the (not surprisingly) anonymous author or authors.
Needless to say, the article was never saw the light of day in a journal - doubtless due to the unreasonable bias of all those august publications.
Comments
Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings.
Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I say this because there are allegations that the data is being massaged and skewed, and there is real peer and political pressure to interpret in a certain way. Similar to how all the studies that were showing how dangerous and disgusting tobacco is were suppressed, or automobile safety tests, or Thalidomide. The scientific community via funding has a symbiotic relationship with the government, it cannot be denied.
Take a look at that survey where scientists were anonymous about their opinions on climate change – the majority could not agree on whether man was causing global warming, and the vast majority agreed that scientists cannot predict the climate, so what is the value of all the interpretations and the political prescriptions that come from that. Antarctica ice growth wasn't predicted at all. I recall in the 1970s people on the news saying Florida would be completely underwater by now. There is a LOT of conflicting information out there and calling skeptics "deniers" is insulting, which I'm just reflecting back to you.
Strawman arguments.
Lame.
You are a denier: "What if humans aren't even causing global warming" is settled science. We are.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-global-warming
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-consensus-global-warming
Oh, the Heartland organization.
Still losing it I see.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
That would be 97% of scientists that are actually involved with the science.
Edit: And thank you for the results from the 2003 survey. Timely it isn't.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
That would be 97% of scientists that are actually involved with the science.
Repeatedly disproven.
Repeatedly disproven.
Link?
Climate Scientists. 97%.
Link?
Disagree. The data interpretation is made by the climatologists, and precedes the political response. You cannot hold science responsible for political decisions arising from its findings.
Scientists are not minions either - now you are just being insulting.
I say this because there are allegations that the data is being massaged and skewed, and there is real peer and political pressure to interpret in a certain way. Similar to how all the studies that were showing how dangerous and disgusting tobacco is were suppressed, or automobile safety tests, or Thalidomide. The scientific community via funding has a symbiotic relationship with the government, it cannot be denied.
Take a look at that survey where scientists were anonymous about their opinions on climate change – the majority could not agree on whether man was causing global warming, and the vast majority agreed that scientists cannot predict the climate, so what is the value of all the interpretations and the political prescriptions that come from that. Antarctica ice growth wasn't predicted at all. I recall in the 1970s people on the news saying Florida would be completely underwater by now. There is a LOT of conflicting information out there and calling skeptics "deniers" is insulting, which I'm just reflecting back to you.
There certainly were allegations, and those were investigated multiple times and found to be false.
Interesting that you bring up the example of tobacco - because it argues exactly counter to your position here. The parallel is that the studies were strongly indicating that tobacco was damaging to health, and the tobacco companies were claiming data manipulation and lack of proof - just like the current climate studies indicate global warming and the energy lobby is claiming data manipulation and lack of proof.
Research funding is not dominated by government - commercial companies are enormous funding sources for research in all fields, which is why it seems very significant that, even with all the money that oil, gas and coal companies pour into research, it has produced almost nothing to support their position on GW.
I'll say it again - if you want to know the scientific consensus on a subject then look at the literature. Polls are unreliable, but I'd point out that if you want to believe them, the vast majority of polls indicate an unprecedented consensus. The scientific community is generally able to distinguish trends from isolated data points, global from local, and understand the limitations of numerical simulation of complex systems, and that is why they realize that the anecdotes and local deviations and model predictions do not invalidate the science or the model fundamentals.
And finally - labeling scientists as minions for being scientists is vastly different to labeling people as deniers for denying the science. One is an ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit climatology, while the other is a simple observation of behavior.
You're doing it again. You're projecting your own biases onto those reports. I know you're trying to convince that you're not biased, but it's not working because your biases are very strong, and you just can't help but to give a dig in your posts that shows it.
I could understand if you said that most climate work was looking good, and pretty accurate, but that some of it didn't seem right. But you don't. According to you, and other deniers, pretty much ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless. But you can't point to a single study by anyone who is respected in the field that proves the opposite. Not a single one. And that's because there isn't a single study that's respected, that does show that.
I have to use the word "respected" because there are a few people who have done deeply flawed work who are also denying this. But most of those who were denying this just a few years ago, and I'm talking about scientists, have now come over to agree that this is a very serious problem, and that we are causing most of it.
It should be easy to see where the deniers are coming from. The biggest backers of that are the Koch brothers. What do they do, you ask? They are the owners of tise country's, and some of the world's biggest coal mines. Coal, as you should know, is the world's dirtiest fuel, with no hope of ever being able to clean it up. So they, and other dirty energy companies back this nonsense about us not having anything to do global warming, because if they did, then what would they do? Owners of coal and oil fired energy plants also back that contention, because they don't want to spend the bucks to move to cleaner energy production. This is all pretty obvious, and looking at where the lobbying bucks are makes it pretty public as well.
But of course, you don't want to look at that! You believe the propaganda they spew out, with absolutely no scientific backing, and indeed, bucking the science we know to be true.
If you simply don't have to ability to leave your biases behind, and evaluate those reports objectively, which it seems you don't, then I'm simply not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore. There's just no point to it.
You're right. I don't know why we're even wasting our time with these people. Unfortunately the right in this country is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The Republican Party is very unscientific in their be.iefs. The problem with being a "business party" as they proclaim themselves to be is that they have to toe the ,ine of the biggest sectors. Those sectors line their election war chests, so even if they don't believe the crap, they have to mouth it.
Your comments show a significant amount of bias and hypocrisy, in such a blatant manner that it hardly even needs pointing out. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your constant derisiveness. You clearly have a preconceived notion of who you think I am, and what your thoughts on this argument are, such that you seem to be completely unable to engage effectively in discussion.
I am not projecting any bias except to be skeptical, which I have been very clear and straightforward about. I was not projecting bias regarding the example I pointed out. My example was a clear demonstration of how scientific evidence has been interpreted in a biased fashion that supported the 'story line' of global warming catastrophe. Not at one single point did I say, or even suggest, that "ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless." You have chosen to focus on a narrow point of my discussion, and ignore the other 80%. Regarding the current evidence (let's say 20% of what I'm trying to say): once again, I will say, that my point is not that the evidence is "worthless" but that it is an enormously complex issue, and we should be skeptical of people who have 100% conviction in what they are saying (given their utterly drastic implications), despite the fact that these same people have been wrong multiple times in the past. Much of the evidence may be on point, but is it only half of the story? Why do we never hear about studies regarding the compensatory mechanisms inherent in all natural systems? In addition, you claim that any opposing view is propaganda, but yet there is a clear propaganda campaign regarding global warming alarmism. Just because you see the cause as just, does not mean it's not propaganda. Nearly every day we're deluged with reports about how we're all going to die in short form. There are even studies being done suggesting we won't have enough cork trees, and thus will have to use plastic corks for our wine.. the horror! Who pays for this multitude of ridiculous studies? Any you say there's no bias?
Speaking of bias, you repeatedly accuse me of bias, but yet you seem to be the one who is biased. I do not know how you started bringing up the Kotch brothers, republicans, being part of the "business party," etc., but I think it's safe to say that you may be the one projecting bias here. I would challenge you to find evidence of me being biased. My view on climate change may be similar in some ways to those you perceive as biased, but I do not identify with those people for the most part. In addition, I've been using many scientific facts during the course of my discussion, verifiable facts which I encourage you to look up yourself. These facts come from my having a degree in biology, as well as being able to look up and analyze research data. Yet somehow you deride me as being a victim of "the propaganda they spew out." As I've said, I think environmentalism should be a top priority, and I believe that we would be truly better off, and the earth would be better off, if just one tenth of the resources being devoted to climate science was instead used to prevent habitat destruction, clean up pollution, etc. This is the main point I want to convey.
I suppose you've purchased quite a bit of carbon credits given your conviction that your actions (living in a developed nation) contribute substantially to global warming.
When considering the environment, I chose to support organizations like Conservation International, an amazing organization that does the hard work (rather than making grandiose proclamations) of working with local economies in developing nations (where most of the environmental destruction is taking place) to provide sustainable alternatives to habitat destruction and resource exploitation. I'd rather do this than buy carbon credits, or be forced to buy a certain type of light bulb.
I am also minded to detach the whole issue of climate change from the state of the environment.
There's obviously no doubt that we've destroyed and damaged huge swathes of natural habitat, one way or another. I'm very keen on preserving habitats and increasing existing ones, as well as creating new ones. And more trees!
But trying to discuss climate change dispassionately with anyone seems nigh on impossible where there is disagreement, which strikes me as a shame. I feel that a healthy skepticism is the best stance for now, as, given the history of mankind, we haven't done a very good job of predicting the climate, and it seems clear that there is an awful lot that we don't know concerning nature. It’s not a question of saying that data is right or wrong, but of how one interprets data. It’s incredibly easy to interpret what appear to be simple, concrete facts in two completely different ways. And trying to extrapolate everything into one final conclusion is extraordinarily difficult, to the point of impossibility.
I would suggest that all the variables that create climate are so numerous, that climate is essentially chaotic. We can observe trends, but trends have a habit of changing.
Absolutely. Which study claiming 97 would you like disproven?
Link?
Was this:
A. You repeating the claim because repeating it a bunch of times makes it “true”
or
B. You repeating the claim and asking for a link to it, as well?
Your comments show a significant amount of bias and hypocrisy, in such a blatant manner that it hardly even needs pointing out. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of your constant derisiveness. You clearly have a preconceived notion of who you think I am, and what your thoughts on this argument are, such that you seem to be completely unable to engage effectively in discussion.
I am not projecting any bias except to be skeptical, which I have been very clear and straightforward about. I was not projecting bias regarding the example I pointed out. My example was a clear demonstration of how scientific evidence has been interpreted in a biased fashion that supported the 'story line' of global warming catastrophe. Not at one single point did I say, or even suggest, that "ALL of the work is so flawed so as to be worthless." You have chosen to focus on a narrow point of my discussion, and ignore the other 80%. Regarding the current evidence (let's say 20% of what I'm trying to say): once again, I will say, that my point is not that the evidence is "worthless" but that it is an enormously complex issue, and we should be skeptical of people who have 100% conviction in what they are saying (given their utterly drastic implications), despite the fact that these same people have been wrong multiple times in the past. Much of the evidence may be on point, but is it only half of the story? Why do we never hear about studies regarding the compensatory mechanisms inherent in all natural systems? In addition, you claim that any opposing view is propaganda, but yet there is a clear propaganda campaign regarding global warming alarmism. Just because you see the cause as just, does not mean it's not propaganda. Nearly every day we're deluged with reports about how we're all going to die in short form. There are even studies being done suggesting we won't have enough cork trees, and thus will have to use plastic corks for our wine.. the horror! Who pays for this multitude of ridiculous studies? Any you say there's no bias?
Speaking of bias, you repeatedly accuse me of bias, but yet you seem to be the one who is biased. I do not know how you started bringing up the Kotch brothers, republicans, being part of the "business party," etc., but I think it's safe to say that you may be the one projecting bias here. I would challenge you to find evidence of me being biased. My view on climate change may be similar in some ways to those you perceive as biased, but I do not identify with those people for the most part. In addition, I've been using many scientific facts during the course of my discussion, verifiable facts which I encourage you to look up yourself. These facts come from my having a degree in biology, as well as being able to look up and analyze research data. Yet somehow you deride me as being a victim of "the propaganda they spew out." As I've said, I think environmentalism should be a top priority, and I believe that we would be truly better off, and the earth would be better off, if just one tenth of the resources being devoted to climate science was instead used to prevent habitat destruction, clean up pollution, etc.
I suppose you've purchased quite a bit of carbon credits given your conviction that your actions (living in a developed nation) contribute substantially to global warming.
When considering the environment, I chose to support organizations like Conservation International, an amazing organization that does the hard work (rather than making grandiose proclamations) of working with local economies in developing nations (where most of the environmental destruction is taking place) to provide sustainable alternatives to habitat destruction and resource exploitation. I'd rather do this than buy carbon credits, or be forced to buy a certain type of light bulb.
You, as a biologist, are aware of the data wrt to the destruction of coral reefs, right?
Absolutely. Which study claiming 97 would you like disproven?
Was this:
A. You repeating the claim because repeating it a bunch of times makes it “true”
or
B. You repeating the claim and asking for a link to it, as well?
Please provide a link, since you didn't previously.
thanks
Again, which study would you like disproven?
Great comment again, Patchy.
I am also minded to detach the whole issue of climate change from the state of the environment.
There's obviously no doubt that we've destroyed and damaged huge swathes of natural habitat, one way or another. I'm very keen on preserving habitats and increasing existing ones, as well as creating new ones. And more trees!
But trying to discuss climate change dispassionately with anyone seems nigh on possible where there is disagreement, which strikes me as a shame. I feel that a healthy skepticism is the best stance for now, as, given the history of mankind, we haven't done a very good job of predicting the climate, and it seems clear that there is an awful lot that we don't know concerning nature. It’s not a question of saying that data is right or wrong, but of how one interprets data. It’s incredibly easy to interpret what appear to be simple, concrete facts in two completely different ways. And trying to extrapolate everything into one final conclusion is extraordinarily difficult, to the point of impossibility.
I would suggest that all the variables that create climate are so numerous, that climate is essentially chaotic. We can observe trends, but trends have a habit of changing.
Thanks Benjamin! While I disagree with much of what you have said about Apple Watch, Tim Cook, and Beats, I very much appreciate your comments regarding this issue. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we recognized when our emotions were leading us astray of objectivity. The emotional urge to push us in a certain direction can be a had thing to fight, but we can't let ourselves sacrifice ideas for the sake of ideology.
Again, which study would you like disproven?
I posted a link to the NASA report:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You stated: "repeatedly disproven"
I asked for a link.
I'll ask differently.
Do you have a link that disproves that 97% of Climate Scientists agree that:
"climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities".
Source:
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
You, as a biologist, are aware of the data wrt to the destruction of coral reefs, right?
Please provide a link, since you didn't previously.
thanks
Yes, I've heard of that issue, of ocean acidification. I'm not familiar enough with this particular issue to debate details (although I'd be glad to hear them), but on the surface it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense that there would be localized acidification, whilst sparing reefs in other locations. I've heard of bleaching being an issue as well, I'm guessing due to thinning ozone? But that seems to be a separate issue from global warming for the most part.
Yes, I've heard of that issue, of ocean acidification. I'm not familiar enough with this particular issue to debate details (although I'd be glad to hear them), but on the surface it doesn't make a terrible amount of sense that there would be localized acidification, whilst sparing reefs in other locations. I've heard of bleaching being an issue as well, I'm guessing due to thinning ozone? But that seems to be a separate issue from global warming for the most part.
Here, I'll help.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.long
CO2 absorption is higher in warmer waters, hence higher levels.
EDIT:
"CO2 absorption is higher in warmer waters, hence higher levels" is wrong.
It is very complicated and depends on a number of factors outlined in the link below:
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/02SprgClass/geo117/lectures/Lect18.html
Here, I'll help.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.long
CO2 absorption is higher in warmer waters, hence higher levels.
Thank you for posting that. Interesting to read. However, with a cursory look, I see a lot of problems.
1) CO2 is a volatile gas, meaning that with increased water temp, more will evaporate into the atmosphere, not be absorbed in the water.
2) They used closed systems (tanks), which is hardly a substitute for the multitude of variables seen in situ, not to mention that there's nowhere for the CO2 to escape, so there's naturally going to be increased partial pressure (I didn't see where they accounted for pressure, although I may have missed this).
3) It turns out, moderate increase in CO2, such as they're predicting up until 2060 (again, assuming their typically flawed models are correct), results in a 30% INCREASE IN CORAL PRODUCTIVITY. It's not until "high" levels of CO2 are reached (supposedly somewhere between 2060-2090!) that activity drops off. This study could easily be interpreted as CO2 being positive for corals.
4) I don't see how this data explains current coral reef bleaching sufficiently.
As usual, in any scientific study, the devil is in the ^details^ methods.
I'd like to go over this some more. I have some things to do but I definitely plan on revisiting this thread soon.
Cheers!
Thank you for posting that. Interesting to read. However, with a cursory look, I see a lot of problems.
1) CO2 is a volatile gas, meaning that with increased water temp, more, will evaporate into the atmosphere, not be absorbed in the water.
2) They used closed systems (tanks), which is hardly a substitute for the multitude of variables seen in situ, not to mention that there's nowhere for the CO2 to escape, so there's naturally going to be increased pressure (I didn't see where they accounted for air pressure, although I may have missed this).
3) It turns out, moderate increase in CO2, such as they're predicting up until 2060 (again, assuming their typically flawed models are correct), results in a 30% INCREASE IN CORAL PRODUCTIVITY. Its not until "high" levels of CO2 are reached (supposedly somewhere between 2060-2090!) that activity drops off.
4) I don't see how this data explains current coral reef bleaching sufficiently.
As usual in any scientific study, the devil is in the ^details^ methods.
I'd like to go over this some more. I have some things to do but I definitely plan on revisiting this thread soon.
Cheers!
I made a correction and added a link in my previous post;
Here's another link that explains the phenomena, which is related to warmer water and expulsion of algae coral:
http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/CoralReefsandClimateChange.pdf
"At the foundation of the reef ecosystem is the interrela- tionship between coral polyps, an invertebrate marine animal, and zooxanthellae, tiny plants called algae that live inside the corals (Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994). Coral polyps provide the algae with nitrogen and phosphorous (waste products from the corals’ digestion of plankton and other foods) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the corals’ respiration, which the algae needs for photosynthesis. In return, the algae provide coral polyps with oxygen, nutrients, and their characteristic color (it is the algae that are pigmented, not the coral themselves). This symbiotic relationship also helps corals sustain high rates of calcification (the production of calcium carbonate), which forms their protective “skeletons” and is the fundamental building block of coral reefs.
Together, the corals and algae depend on a highly spe- cific environment (although there is some degree of vari- ability among certain species and regions).
Generally, coral reefs need:
• Warm, relatively consistent water temperatures (coral
reefs generally grow best between 77 to 84.2 degrees Fahrenheit, only a few degrees below their upper ther- mal limit, although the absolute range may be between 64.4 and 91.4 degrees Fahrenheit for some corals) (Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 89);
• Shallow, clear water to provide regular sunlight for pho- tosynthesis (maximum rates of growth and productivity occur between 16.4 to 49.2 feet) (Hopley and Kinsey, 1988; Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 13);
• Low levels of sedimentation, too much of which can restrict sunlight and smother the corals (Chou, 1991); • Relatively low levels of organic and inorganic nutrients
(corals receive much of what they need from their symbiotic algae);
• Consistent salinity [optimally about 35 parts per tril-
lion (ppt), with a range between 25 and 40 ppt]
(Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994, p. 13); and
• Shielding from excessive UV-B radiation, which can
damage corals’ DNA."
The CO2 link to Global Warming is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (from a increased partial pressure of CO2 than historically) which increases the total CO2 absorption of the Ocean, even at the higher water temperature. Warmer water breaks the symbiotic relationship with the coral, and more susceptible to dissolution from the acidification from increased CO2
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Okay, cool. Let’s look at them.
Oreskes
Here’s her assertion:
Personal note: I want to make my own comment regarding this quote before presenting the codified rebuttal. That 75% fell into the first three categories has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether the authors agreed with anthropogenic global warming. Only the first category regards agreement with the consensus in any respect; the other two would be relevant to the topic of global warming from any source. Perhaps I’m personally misunderstanding these categories, but given that her study is completely wrong, I don’t think that I am.
Anyway, continued.
Oreskes claimed her survey base to be 928 papers and of that 75% of abstracts reviewed explicitly agreed with the AGW ‘consensus’ and that the remaining 25% did not object – assuming “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Oreskes’ statement about ‘consensus’ is that scientists in general agree with the IPCC third assessment report that: “In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities...”
Oreskes chart breaks down with no direct refutations of AGW. However, the lack of subjects refuting AGW does not mean there is consensus on what the impact, ratio, or cause of global warming/climate change may be. Further, the IPCC declaration is widely cited as the reference point for ‘consensus’ on AGW – but many scientists reject that declaration as will be shown in the following deconstructionist breakdowns of these surveys.
Peiser subsequently reran Oreskes’ experiment beginning with a base of some 1,117 abstracts and found only 13 abstracts that explicitly agreed with the IPCC AGW declaration. As highlighted by the red box in the chart shown below, most of the papers were unrelated to AGW, and only referred to the term ‘climate change.’ The next highest category of “implicitly agree” does not detail the broad range of scientific perspective; the papers stating natural factors were more influential in climate far outweighed those who explicitly agree with the IPCC declaration used in that survey. Two other categories of papers had no position stated on AGW or the IPCC declaration.
Doran & Zimmerman
Doran and Zimmerman surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists with the following two questions.
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Personal note: Of the 10,257 surveyed, 3,146 responded. Three thousand, one hundred forty-six is therefore the total pool of answers. Not answering can be considered ‘invalid data’, as there is no data to be considered valid, and thus we can toss ‘10,257’ as number. Thus, if you were looking for the answer “Yes” and 3,146 responded “Yes”, you would have 100% “Yes” votes. (Would you, personally, agree with this assessment? If not, why? That’s how statistics work.)
Upon review it appears that of the 3,146 respondents, only 79 were identified as ‘climate scientists’ (though no definition of ‘climate scientist’ or qualifications were ever provided). Of those, some 76 agreed with the opinion (‘risen’) in the first question: Q1: “When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
The question does not mention any human-caused reason for a rise in temperature, therefore it cannot rightly be said to show any consensus of the IPCC AGW declaration. Most geologists would agree temperatures have risen because since 1880 the earth has been warming out of the cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The cause is the subject of debate (and was not mentioned in the question).
Likewise, the second question by Doran and Zimmerman: Q2: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
The word "significant" cannot be quantified. The IPCC AGW statement is that GHGs cause more than 90% of the warming. The IPCC declaration singles out GHGs from human activity, but does not ascribe all human activity (which includes land disturbance, urban warming and black soot on snow, etc). Neither of the two questions mentions human-caused GHG emissions, so neither can evaluate the agreement with the IPCC AGW statement.
Nonetheless Doran and Zimmerman claimed a 97.4% consensus to this question – based on a “yes” response by 75 out of 77 self-identified ‘climatologists’ (the credentials of whom were never detailed). This would mean only 2.38% of 3,146 scientists agree with an undefined expression of AGW.
Excluded from the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey of earth scientists would be scientists in other relevant climate disciplines such as solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists.
Personal note: On the point in the last sentence, a growing number of solar scientists are predicting an increase in the possibility (notice not 97% of them believe this nor is there a ‘consensus’ by which to measure it) of another Maunder minimum in this century. The Maunder minimum was a period of abnormally low sunspot activity (to the extent that the sun would have no sunspots at all for extended periods) that coincided with the coolest global weather in the last 1000 years.
Sunspot records are one of the longest continually running points of data that humans have. I just think that’s really really neat. Anyone with a telescope can count and record sunspots, and since the invention thereof that’s exactly what we’ve been doing.
Anderegg
Personal note: Yeah, that criterion? Rubs me the wrong way. Should rub anyone the wrong way. By this criterion, the paper Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen would have been thrown out, as Einstein had not published 20 papers by the time of its writing. To explain the importance thereof, ATOMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEEN AS BEING REAL–they would be nothing more than a CONCEPT in the minds of many–if this paper is thrown out. Anyway, back to the current paper.
Personal note: Do you see a problem here? I see a problem here. Do you see a problem here?
Personal note: This, well, I just explained this; it’s in their own words why they wanted “climate scientists” (quotes for quoting, not for mocking). Back to the codified response.
Anderegg… …evaluated by a review of what type of public statements scientists may have signed. A contributor to the IPCC report was automatically assumed to support the IPCC declaration. This is an unjustified assumption.
The Anderegg et al (2010) study was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), despite the fact that the authors were not members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Anderegg, the lead author, was an MA student at the time. PNAS accepted this study as a ‘contributed’ article from NAS member, the late Stephen Schneider. Any member of the NAS had, at that time, the right to submit 4 ‘contributed’ articles per year of which they had to be part of the design, but did not have to have done the research themselves. These submissions were reviewed by two qualified reviewers of the contributor’s choice.
By contrast, the PNAS has a very stringent “Direct Submission” peer- review process that a ‘contributed’ article does not go through. However, by the very fact of its publication in the PNAS, a ‘contributed’ article garners the same high profile and assumed level of scientific diligence for the uninformed reader, as a stringently, blind peer-reviewed Direct Submission paper.
Anderegg’s 100 “most cited” authors. Not the full scope of the study they did, no sir. The 100 “most cited” (referring to the aforementioned cutoff of publication). This is where they got their “97%”.
Anderegg’s entire study. Scientists don’t throw out data.
Additional info
Personal note: Since anthropogenic supporters love to point out (or fabricate) association to groups they (themselves, not through the scientific process, legal process of ‘reasonable doubt’, or with any other dispassionate measure) feel will render an opposing viewpoint moot or irrelevant, it is important to note potential omissions (or “omissions”) of information and association among anthropogenic supporters, as well.
Oreskes - At the time Naomi Oreskes published her first work, she was a Member of the National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council Committee on the Use of Models in Regulatory Decisions-making 2004-2007. This was not stated in her Science Magazine article.
Doran and Zimmerman- Margaret K. Zimmerman was a student of Peter Doran. She took a short questionnaire of Doran’s offered in a geology class and expanded the questions to form her MA thesis. The conclusions published by Doran and Zimmerman in Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union’s weekly magazine which includes peer-reviewed items do not appear to reflect the diverse results she herself reflected upon in her original thesis.
Anderegg et al (2010) - This paper was ‘contributed’ to the PNAS by NAS member Stephen Schneider. He was an early proponent in the 1980’s of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a means of stopping global warming. He was founder and editor of Climatic Change journal. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Personal note: Neither ‘climate scientist’ nor ‘consensus’ seems to be defined in any of these three papers. That’s… sort of the point, isn’t it?
Finally, you have to remember that consensus is meaningless to either science or truth. You can have 97% belief that reactionless thrust is impossible, with thousands (or, in the case of reality, dozens) of papers claiming thus, but as soon as one person makes a reactionless drive, that consensus is instantly, irrevocably wrong.
I’ll give you more information on these papers if you’d like. I was also sort of hoping that the NASA page would cite “Cook, et. al.”, but perhaps even they recognize how disgustingly wrong that pile of garbage is.
Final note: I wonder (worry, rather) about peer-review in climate science not being double-blind. Can I say the phrase ‘confirmation bias’ and be taken seriously, or are those words illegal these days?
Acronym Guide
AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming
ACC: Anthropogenic Climate Change (confusingly, used by the the pro-anthropogenic global warming crowd)
GHG: Greenhouse Gases
CE: Convinced by Evidence
UE: Unconvinced by Evidence
It would have been better if you had attributed that, up front, to the Friends of Science article published by heartland.org. Unattributed material is generally regarded as plagiarism in scientific debate. Either way, it is an unsubtle attempt at obfuscation. The article "97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS. The “Science” of Statisticulation", made an attempt to argue that consensus did not exist by questioning the validity of the samples and categorizations which, on the face of it, is a reasonable check to make. It presents, with varying levels of persuasiveness, potential issues with all of the studies, but then conflates potential issues with wholesale rejection of the studies.
For example, one of the Anderegg questions concerned whether the respondents were convinced or unconvinced by the evidence. The article rejects the results because it does not "describe to what extent or what cause convinced these scientists". This kind of arbitrariness (quaintly referred to as deconstructionism) pervades the entire article and, by slight of hand, manages to claim a reduction of the level of support from the 97% in the title to as little as 0.5%. The slight of hand in question is primarily to recast the question to one not actually asked, and then, based on that, change almost all potential support to "no position", or to question the validity of the choice of respondent pool.
Of course, unable to get around the inconvenient fact that there are still no credible, published studies countering the current GW evidence, it resorts to the same old accusation that there is no funding available to GW skeptics. Apparently none of the coal, oil or gas companies are willing to provide research funding to demonstrate that their businesses are not responsible for GW or, even better, that it does not exist.
It finishes by devoting several pages to the horror of being humiliated and ostracized by the scientific community for disagreeing with the consensus position - that it just spent much time arguing is not the consensus position. The implications of that contradiction appear to be entirely lost on the (not surprisingly) anonymous author or authors.
Needless to say, the article was never saw the light of day in a journal - doubtless due to the unreasonable bias of all those august publications.
I guess that what this boils down to is your apparent incapability of comprehending the concept of agreement.