global warming turns 35

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the popular press ran with scientific fringe elements. They never talked to real scientists, and still don't.

You IDIOT! Where the fuck do you think the press came up with the idea of global cooling? Did they fucking pull it out of thin air? They talked to fucking scientist and reported on the consensus, the exact same way they do today. If you want to insists that there was no consensus back then then you will have to admit one does not exist now.

Why is it you ignore facts simply because they disagree with your theories? The consensus existed back then, and it went the other way 50 years before that, and back again to cooling if you go back another 50 years. But don't worry, that was just the popular press then to, and the real scientists always believed in global warming.

A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!

In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.

Wow, you searched decades worth of scientific literature and found less than 50 papers about climate change, and expect me to back down because the ones you found support your position and not mine? Keep dreaming, and I think I owe an apology to idiots. I hope we are both around in another 50 years when you try to argue that there was no scientific consensus supporting global warming in 2000.

Proving yourself to be a real dumbass, Quantum. The period that was in question was from 1970 to 1979. And in peer reviewed journals, there were about 50 papers directly concerned with warming or cooling climate, on a global scale, published.

And today, there is an overwhelming consensus in all fields of endevour in science that we are experiancing rapid warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 1975, when the wingnuts claim that everybody was screaming "another ice age coming", this paper was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Clear predictions were made, and turned out to be quite accurate concerning the overall temperature rise. The 'sceptics' have yet to publish any such papers. In fact, they cannot even get the past decade right.

"Global Warming" turns 35 : A Few Things Ill Considered

Global Warming" turns 35
Category: Announcements • general • other blogs • papers
Posted on: July 30, 2010 7:57 PM, by coby

This is not a reference to the recent three decades of rapidly increasing global temperatures, rather it is a reference to an aniversary of the first appearance of the term "global warming" in the peer reviewed literature. The paper was by Wally Broeker and titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?"



Real Climate has an interesting post on the details of this paper. The short version is that despite numerous considerations in the paper that have played out differently than hypothesized, the overall prediction of temperature by the end of the 20th century was remarkably accurate.


In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted "that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide", and that "by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years". He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.
[....]
To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable, the anniversary of Broecker's paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that "global warming is here").

bullshit and the hucksters who fling it have been around way longer than 35 years; hell, you've been around longer than 35 years.

Well, yes, about double that. And, I suppose, since the Greenhouse Effect, a misnomer, but one we are stuck with, was first noted in 1820 by the polymath, Joseph Fourier, that has been around a bit longer than 35 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the popular press ran with scientific fringe elements. They never talked to real scientists, and still don't.

You IDIOT! Where the fuck do you think the press came up with the idea of global cooling? Did they fucking pull it out of thin air? They talked to fucking scientist and reported on the consensus, the exact same way they do today. If you want to insists that there was no consensus back then then you will have to admit one does not exist now.

Why is it you ignore facts simply because they disagree with your theories? The consensus existed back then, and it went the other way 50 years before that, and back again to cooling if you go back another 50 years. But don't worry, that was just the popular press then to, and the real scientists always believed in global warming.

A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!

In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.

Seems that claim of thousands of climatologists is a tad bit....well....inflated. It appears that the consensus is from fewer than 80 climatologists and they of course self selected the survey targets. Par for the course with this un-ethical group.

The Hockey Schtick: The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003


Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences

(Adopted by AMS Council on 9 February 2003)
Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

Executive Summary

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change. Several national and international studies published in 2001 have provided reviews and assessments of the science of climate change. A National Research Council report concluded that "[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. . . . The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" (National Research Council 2001a). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that recent regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, have already affected many physical and biological systems (McCarthy et al. 2001), and a national assessment on climate change impacts on the United States concluded that "natural ecosystems, which are our life support system in many ways, appear to be the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of climate change," but, "highly managed ecosystems appear more robust" (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001).

 

[Old Rocks]

Logicalscience

Arnold Schwarzenegger recently said:

Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It's as simple as that.
Well lets see if the skeptics can meet even these standards. Arnold claims that the dissenting 2% can be ignored. Marc Morano claims that this list of 12 skeptics is just the "tip of the iceberg" and:

A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.
According to Eli Rabett there are roughly 20,000-ish climatologists that are members of the AGU. About 5,000 of those are Europeans taking part in a mostly American club. There are no stats on worldwide climatologists yet. But as Professor Eli also says: "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no damn climate scientist in the US". Well applying Arnold's ignorable 2% to 20,000 AGU members means we can ignore, at a bare minimum, 400 climate change skeptics worldwide. So will Marc Morano be able to come meet Arnold's standards? With more than 388 missing AGU skeptics to locate and an exiguous amount of anti-consensus papers in peer review from 1993-2003, my guess is a big fat no.

And here is a list of those that are in the overwhelming consensus on this subject. A partial list.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A consensus is 7 papers against 42? Get your head out of your ass, boy!

In the last ten years the real consensus, hundreds of papers against maybe 1 or 2 in scientific journals,.

Wow, you searched decades worth of scientific literature and found less than 50 papers about climate change, and expect me to back down because the ones you found support your position and not mine? Keep dreaming, and I think I owe an apology to idiots. I hope we are both around in another 50 years when you try to argue that there was no scientific consensus supporting global warming in 2000.

Proving yourself to be a real dumbass, Quantum. The period that was in question was from 1970 to 1979. And in peer reviewed journals, there were about 50 papers directly concerned with warming or cooling climate, on a global scale, published.

And today, there is an overwhelming consensus in all fields of endevour in science that we are experiancing rapid warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Even if you restrict yourself to that one decade there were more than 50 papers published.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Logicalscience

Arnold Schwarzenegger recently said:

Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It's as simple as that.
Well lets see if the skeptics can meet even these standards. Arnold claims that the dissenting 2% can be ignored. Marc Morano claims that this list of 12 skeptics is just the "tip of the iceberg" and:

A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.
According to Eli Rabett there are roughly 20,000-ish climatologists that are members of the AGU. About 5,000 of those are Europeans taking part in a mostly American club. There are no stats on worldwide climatologists yet. But as Professor Eli also says: "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no damn climate scientist in the US". Well applying Arnold's ignorable 2% to 20,000 AGU members means we can ignore, at a bare minimum, 400 climate change skeptics worldwide. So will Marc Morano be able to come meet Arnold's standards? With more than 388 missing AGU skeptics to locate and an exiguous amount of anti-consensus papers in peer review from 1993-2003, my guess is a big fat no.

And here is a list of those that are in the overwhelming consensus on this subject. A partial list.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Oh, The Governator. I can't refute him, so I should just go hide in a cave.

 

[Old Rocks]

His was a good analogy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow, you searched decades worth of scientific literature and found less than 50 papers about climate change, and expect me to back down because the ones you found support your position and not mine? Keep dreaming, and I think I owe an apology to idiots. I hope we are both around in another 50 years when you try to argue that there was no scientific consensus supporting global warming in 2000.

Proving yourself to be a real dumbass, Quantum. The period that was in question was from 1970 to 1979. And in peer reviewed journals, there were about 50 papers directly concerned with warming or cooling climate, on a global scale, published.

And today, there is an overwhelming consensus in all fields of endevour in science that we are experiancing rapid warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Even if you restrict yourself to that one decade there were more than 50 papers published.

OK, I gave you referance for my information, give me referance to show that is peer reviewed journals there were more than 50 papers that said there was either definate warming or cooling in the future. Remember, there were a lot of papers, including the one by the NAS in 1975 that stated at the time we didn't know enough about climate to make a definate prediction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In 1975, when the wingnuts claim that everybody was screaming "another ice age coming", this paper was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Clear predictions were made, and turned out to be quite accurate concerning the overall temperature rise. The 'sceptics' have yet to publish any such papers. In fact, they cannot even get the past decade right.

"Global Warming" turns 35 : A Few Things Ill Considered

Global Warming" turns 35
Category: Announcements • general • other blogs • papers
Posted on: July 30, 2010 7:57 PM, by coby

This is not a reference to the recent three decades of rapidly increasing global temperatures, rather it is a reference to an aniversary of the first appearance of the term "global warming" in the peer reviewed literature. The paper was by Wally Broeker and titled "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?"



Real Climate has an interesting post on the details of this paper. The short version is that despite numerous considerations in the paper that have played out differently than hypothesized, the overall prediction of temperature by the end of the 20th century was remarkably accurate.


In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted "that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide", and that "by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years". He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.
[....]
To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable, the anniversary of Broecker's paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that "global warming is here").

35 years and absolutely no scientific evidence that man is causing it. In fact after spending almost 30 years denying the sun had anything to do with it now the warmers claim the sun is keeping the temperature DOWN. Go figure.

 

[Old Rocks]

RGS, there is absolutely no evidence that you have a brain.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientist in disciplines that deal with this issue that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Climatologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists, Biologists, ect. all agree that we are already seeing the changes wrought by our burning of fossil fuels.

Yet you know more than all of these professional scientists.

 

[westwall]

RGS, there is absolutely no evidence that you have a brain.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientist in disciplines that deal with this issue that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Climatologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists, Biologists, ect. all agree that we are already seeing the changes wrought by our burning of fossil fuels.

Yet you know more than all of these professional scientists.

Horsecrap! Your consensus consists of 76 scientists out of 79 that were asked. And gthey self selected the sample. Real proper survey work there. I showed the article to my wife (who writes exceptional surveys for the GSA and GAO) and she nearly choked. This is the last section of the paper, complete paper is linked below. There's your 97%, a whopping 76 people BIG DEAL!


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. This is in contrast to results of a
recent Gallup poll (see http://
www
.gallup
.com/
poll/
1615/
Environment
.aspx)
that

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

 

[Old Rocks]

RGS, there is absolutely no evidence that you have a brain.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientist in disciplines that deal with this issue that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Climatologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists, Biologists, ect. all agree that we are already seeing the changes wrought by our burning of fossil fuels.

Yet you know more than all of these professional scientists.

Horsecrap! Your consensus consists of 76 scientists out of 79 that were asked. And gthey self selected the sample. Real proper survey work there. I showed the article to my wife (who writes exceptional surveys for the GSA and GAO) and she nearly choked. This is the last section of the paper, complete paper is linked below. There's your 97%, a whopping 76 people BIG DEAL!


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. This is in contrast to results of a
recent Gallup poll (see http://
www
.gallup
.com/
poll/
1615/
Environment
.aspx)
that

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

Seems that there were only 79 scientists that had 50% or more of their peer reviewed papers on climate change. So, in effect, the survey did include all of the most knowledgeable experts on the subject.

GSA as in Geological Society of America, or General Services Administration?

And, yes, it is a whopping big deal. It means that the consensus among the most knowledgeable on the subject is rock solid. When you add in all the other scientists, such as those in the Chemical Societies, Physics Societies, and, most importantly, the Geological Societies, that are in total agreement with the 76, then you have an overwhelming consensus.

But then, it would truly be a shame to let reality intrude on your Conservative fantasies.

 

[westwall]

RGS, there is absolutely no evidence that you have a brain.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientist in disciplines that deal with this issue that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Climatologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists, Biologists, ect. all agree that we are already seeing the changes wrought by our burning of fossil fuels.

Yet you know more than all of these professional scientists.

Horsecrap! Your consensus consists of 76 scientists out of 79 that were asked. And gthey self selected the sample. Real proper survey work there. I showed the article to my wife (who writes exceptional surveys for the GSA and GAO) and she nearly choked. This is the last section of the paper, complete paper is linked below. There's your 97%, a whopping 76 people BIG DEAL!


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. This is in contrast to results of a
recent Gallup poll (see http://
www
.gallup
.com/
poll/
1615/
Environment
.aspx)
that

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

Seems that there were only 79 scientists that had 50% or more of their peer reviewed papers on climate change. So, in effect, the survey did include all of the most knowledgeable experts on the subject.

GSA as in Geological Society of America, or General Services Administration?

And, yes, it is a whopping big deal. It means that the consensus among the most knowledgeable on the subject is rock solid. When you add in all the other scientists, such as those in the Chemical Societies, Physics Societies, and, most importantly, the Geological Societies, that are in total agreement with the 76, then you have an overwhelming consensus.

But then, it would truly be a shame to let reality intrude on your Conservative fantasies.

Yes it is difficult to get peer reviewed articles when the climate mafia prevents it. But this so called claim of thousands of scientists is busted forever old fraud, it wasn't THOUSANDS of scientists it was a self selected group of 76. That makes it a LIE, something you are quite familiar with.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. These same 76 write all the policy statements for all the Scientific Societies in the world? A bit wobbly there in your logic, old boy.

 

[westwall]

I see. These same 76 write all the policy statements for all the Scientific Societies in the world? A bit wobbly there in your logic, old boy.

Consensus proves nothing old fraud, if it did the world would in fact be flat, the Sun would revolve around the Earth, and in fact the Earth would in fact be only 6000 years old as per Bishop Usher. But we know that ALL those viewpoints were in fact wrong, just like the modern version of Lysenkoism known as Global Warming Alarmism.

And here is a little more on that peer review process that was so shamefully perverted.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Envi...ndard?cid=exrss-Environmental-Policy-Examiner

 

[IanC]

A problem with consesus is what questions you ask and how you score them. has the earth warmed over the last hundred years? yes. did burning fossil fuels contribute to that warming? yes. but what if you change the questions? did the earth warm from 1998-2008 to statistical certainty Dr Jones?-no (if thats not the guy or the years, yu knw what I mean). or, is mankind responsible for all the changes in he climate? no.

Old Rocks- I am personally interested in your opinion on how much of the last century's warming is due to man and how much is just a carry over from the recovery of the Little Ice Age. tia

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. These same 76 write all the policy statements for all the Scientific Societies in the world? A bit wobbly there in your logic, old boy.

Consensus proves nothing old fraud, if it did the world would in fact be flat, the Sun would revolve around the Earth, and in fact the Earth would in fact be only 6000 years old as per Bishop Usher. But we know that ALL those viewpoints were in fact wrong, just like the modern version of Lysenkoism known as Global Warming Alarmism.

And here is a little more on that peer review process that was so shamefully perverted.

Global warming: The Blacklist Paper violates every ethical standard

Now why don't you start citing articles from the National Enquirer? Just as much weight as this trash.

 

[Old Rocks]

A problem with consesus is what questions you ask and how you score them. has the earth warmed over the last hundred years? yes. did burning fossil fuels contribute to that warming? yes. but what if you change the questions? did the earth warm from 1998-2008 to statistical certainty Dr Jones?-no (if thats not the guy or the years, yu knw what I mean). or, is mankind responsible for all the changes in he climate? no.

Old Rocks- I am personally interested in your opinion on how much of the last century's warming is due to man and how much is just a carry over from the recovery of the Little Ice Age. tia

Ten years ago, I stated that the warming was 60% natural, 40% GHGs. Today, I would say that the only part that was natural was the warming in the early part of the 20th Century. And that warming was 40% the work of GHGs. What we are seeing today is almost 100% due to the GHGs. For there has been a slight decline in the TSI, or not a significant increase, and even in a solar minimum, and a strong La Nina, we continued to be very warm.

However, I think that in 10 years we will see a much stronger natural component to the warming as the GHGs come out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates due to the warming we have created.

 

[westwall]

A problem with consesus is what questions you ask and how you score them. has the earth warmed over the last hundred years? yes. did burning fossil fuels contribute to that warming? yes. but what if you change the questions? did the earth warm from 1998-2008 to statistical certainty Dr Jones?-no (if thats not the guy or the years, yu knw what I mean). or, is mankind responsible for all the changes in he climate? no.

Old Rocks- I am personally interested in your opinion on how much of the last century's warming is due to man and how much is just a carry over from the recovery of the Little Ice Age. tia

Ten years ago, I stated that the warming was 60% natural, 40% GHGs. Today, I would say that the only part that was natural was the warming in the early part of the 20th Century. And that warming was 40% the work of GHGs. What we are seeing today is almost 100% due to the GHGs. For there has been a slight decline in the TSI, or not a significant increase, and even in a solar minimum, and a strong La Nina, we continued to be very warm.

However, I think that in 10 years we will see a much stronger natural component to the warming as the GHGs come out of the permafrost and Arctic Ocean Clathrates due to the warming we have created.

Good luck with that. The rest of the world doesn't seem to hold to your beliefs. Well except for the rest of the religious warmists of course.

 

[ekiosity]

Moral of this article:

DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Right?