EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:35 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:18 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Milton Banana wrote:

On the contrary I have found reams of research that goes against the consensus.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html



Just picking one at random.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5874/336.abstract

How does this challenge the consensus, Emiliania huxleyi is just one species. To say that somethings are going to adapt to new conditions is not challenging the consensus.

This list convinced you?

Have you heard about some exciting investment opportunities in Greek government bonds?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:31 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


On the contrary I have found reams of research that goes against the consensus.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html


Wow, over 1000 now? Sounds like a lot until you look at the context, which is the number of papers supporting the consensus. This is especially true when you remove the papers from the list which do not support as is indicated. Such as a random temperature spike identified somewhere from 1000 AD to 1500 AD being the MWP, regardless of duration.

I am reminded of the evidense of the 30000 signatures "supporting" the skeptical view in the Oregon Petition being evidence of the size of the oppostion to the consensus. It too sounds impressive until you look at the number of graduates just in the US which meet their criteria each year.

Neither case even approaches the 3% opposition stated in the research or polls, so that actually makes this view appear even weaker.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
warmair wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


On the contrary I have found reams of research that goes against the consensus.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html


Mostly Junk but see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

Quote:
Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.


Quote:
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically. My first cursory search returned 0.1%. The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%


And this is the view of Roger Pielke one of the few scientists who question climate the severity of climate.

Quote:
After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.


I also note the number of articles that have been published in what I can only describe as second rate journals.



^.......Better response ..... ^ ........ I agree.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:50 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


May last post was in response to this quote. This notion seems to indicate there is no "science" to the skeptical view. There is. You also mentioned the OISM Petition. Here is the break down of that petition.

Quote:
OISM Petition signer breakdown.







Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (5Cool
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:53 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2290
Location: Central Colorado
Hey, banana potato head, Wayne blew your stinking garbage to hell! It really pisses me off that nothing has been done to stop going past the tundra methane self release tipping point since 1997, because of jerk skeptics. People who can't even feel it happening over the years, or foresee what it will do to future generations.
from Wayne's link:
"First, let's look at the Oregon Petition. They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.

According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees. We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees. In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population. If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).

Numerator, meet The Denominator! 31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099. Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate. This is what The Denominator does. He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.

Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm. (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him."
You can read can't you, or are you a fruit or vegetable?

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?


May last post was in response to this quote. This notion seems to indicate there is no "science" to the skeptical view.


There is no scientific evidence in support of the denier view, thus there is no real science attached. The skeptic view usually has some connection to science because they do not disputr some of the basic science facts.

Quote:
There is.


Not really, as was noted one of the references picked at random indicated a speices already attempting to adapt, which does not support the skeptical view of human related climate change at all. That is the attempt to make it appear there is science where there is none.

Quote:
You also mentioned the OISM Petition. Here is the break down of that petition.

Quote:
OISM Petition signer breakdown.







Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (5Cool
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)


That is the claimed break down, but we all know or should know that there was no confirmation in the first round of signatures and no independently confirmed confirmation on the second round. Both rounds were intermingled so the entire petition is still suspect from the problems of fake signatures documented in the first round. We have the claim of education without evidence to back it up. The attempts to indepnedently confirm names and signatures have meet with poor results for the petition.

Now compare these "big" numbers to the number of degrees earned in one year, 2008-2009

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

2008-09

Associate's 787,325
Bachelor's 1,601,368
Master's 656,784
First-professional 92,004
(Includes first-professional degrees such as M.D., D.D.S., and law degrees)
Doctoral 67,716 (Includes Ph.D., Ed.D., and comparable degrees at the doctoral level)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
7.That natural/solar/cosmic forces are responsible for majority of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age

At presnt this might even be true. I can't find an exact number for LIA mostly because there isn't one. Strangely enough this statement doesn't refute reasons for present warming. To the hardcore denier this is enough proof that AGW is all wrong. Even the last 150 years has warmed partly due to natural variation. That isn't true though for the last 30 years

[color=#408000][color=#408000]Since most of the warming has been since about 1980 from the last 150 years, I don't believe this to be true. Below is a carbon dioxide graph since the little ice age. CO2 dips down during the lia. Interesting correlation.[/color][/color]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbo ... labels.png


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes areas affected by the LIA:

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[8]


http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-compr ... rming.html


Image


Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 25-30 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (FR11, green).




Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
8.That modern warming is not "accelerating"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Does anyone not see this as acceleration? The teperature record definitely showing accelertion.

giss 1982 to 2012
Trend: 1.75 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1892 to 1982
Trend: 0.42 ±0.11 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1952 to 1982
Trend: 0.36 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1922 to 1952
Trend: 0.72 ±0.52 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1892 to 1922
Trend: 0.03 ±0.55 °C/century (2σ)


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... n-reports/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
9.That modern warming is not "unprecedented"

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c048p005.pdf



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... te-change/


However, Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, has now shown that global warming, i.e. simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20,000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments. Svante Björck’s study thus goes 14,000 years further back in time than previous studies have done. “What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective,” he says.



Our warming even exceeds the speed of the PTEM period. The recent warming we have gone through is much faster than the PETM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
10.That modern warming is not "unequivocal"

unequivocal - definition of unequivocal by the Free Online Dictionary

Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous:



http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ ... lo-rez.pdf


http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidenc ... arming.htm


Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
11.That past IPCC global climate model predictions have been spectacularly wrong

Pick whatever you want from the link below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/search. ... ctions_150


Image


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
12.That climate model simulations are not empirical evidence



[color=#408000]This allows the stout denier to completely disregard the model. From the previous post you would ask the quesiton, what is the valid information that we can gain from the model.

The person who is determined that AGW is wrong won't even pay attention to emperical evidence.
[/color]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
13.There is no empirical evidence supporting an temperature amplification from 1.2°C to 4°C





http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm

Climate sensitivity from empirical observations
There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
14.There is no empirical evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor

The observations of the trend of increased water vapor are plugged into the models to see what caused the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. They were able to narrow it down to human caused from emissions of co2. This is clearly one of the fingerprints of climate change.


Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
15.There is no empirical evidence for a human caused tropical atmosphere 'hot spot'


Abscense or prescense of a hot spot is not relevant to the existence or nonexistence of climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/troposp ... vanced.htm

Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

It does not.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group