EnviroLink Forum

In the way the statement was framed, yes there was 97% agreement amongst 50% peer reviewed climate scientists.


http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?


Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen” to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

delta T = lamda * RF

delta T = change in earth's surface temperature

lamda = climate sensitivity

RF = radiative forcing

For a doubling of co2 we get 1*C without climate feedbacks RF would be 3.7watts/M*2

Taking from wiki here with feedbacks included there is a consensus that 3*C +-1.5*C then would give
lamda= delta T/RF

lamda = 1.5*C/(3.7w/m*2) = .4*C/(w/M*2)
lamda = 3.0*C/(3.7w/m*2) = .8*C/(w/M*2)
lamda = 4.5*C/(3.7w/m*2) = 1.2*C/(w/M*2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_se ... l-age_data

If Earth were to experience an equilibrium temperature change of ΔT (°C) due to a sustained forcing of ΔF (W/m2), then one might say that x/(ΔT) = (3.7 W/m2)/(ΔF), i.e. that x = ΔT * (3.7 W/m2)/ΔF

x = ΔT * (3.7 W/m2)/ΔF

ΔT= .8*C = industrial change in temperature since 1750
ΔF= 1.6w/M*2 after taking into account all the different forcings
H = -.2w/M*2 ocean heat uptake

x = ΔT times (3.7 W/m2)/(ΔF-H)

x = .8*C times (3.7 W/m2)/ (1.6W/m2 -.2W/m2) = 2.1*C

Rahmstorf qualified that there was a great deal of uncertainty in these calculations.

Here is the low ball estimate and he is on the payroll of the oil companies with the co2 site

Other experimental estimates

Idso (1998)[21] calculated based on eight natural experiments a λ of 0.1 °C/(Wm−2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.


http://earthsky.org/earth/heartland-ins ... enial-gate


Documents surreptitiously obtained from the Heartland Institute and then leaked to public websites in February 2012 disclosed the names of a number of donors to the institute – including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, tobacco companies Altria and Reynolds American, drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, Microsoft, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who has given $13 million over the past five years – as well as the recipients of the institute’s largesse – climate skeptics including Craig Idso, physicist Fred Singer, Robert Carter, and Anthony Watts. The Heartland Institute maintains that the documents, which were first published on Desmogblog, were fraudulently acquired, and that the particular document detailing the alleged plans to influence school curricula is a forgery.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

I'll reply to your lengthy post tomorrow, Warmair.

_________________
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

_________________
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