Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[flacaltenn]

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

But they did NOT. Not in that NASA quote.
I don't think you pay much attention to data or details. Perhaps you might do better in a diff forum..

Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you. Where are the mods when you need them?

 

[Kat]

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

But they did NOT. Not in that NASA quote.
I don't think you pay much attention to data or details. Perhaps you might do better in a diff forum..

Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you. Where are the mods when you need them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent that. Okay,"mod action"... Better?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

There's plenty of info out there. If you're open minded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And I quote:

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. "

Go ahead big guy, there's your "red meat"!! Do you have anything else you would like me to pass along in my email?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's plenty of info out there. I

In the published science? Yes, I know. And it all points in the same direction.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research. What works is REPRODUCIBLE research that could be validated with additional research to see if the hypothesis is working.

Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

...and condescending.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year predictions. Without THAT consensus -- everything else is pretty questionable.

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?? Does it answer the question of temperature or SLRise by 2100??? There IS no 95% consensus on ANY important GW/CC question....

That 95% number used to be 97% and they had a variety of opinions on cause and severity. 97% was propaganda. Just like he's using. That in itself raises legitimate doubts.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not relevant, as the language "extremely.likelyy" was the language used.

That's not what you wrote. Are you confused? And even if it was --- is man responsible for 60% or 100%? Is man responsible for the GIGANTIC El Nino warmings that add to the temperature anomaly? Or ALL of the cattle farts?

Even it was "extremely likely" -- what does it say about the MAGNITUDE of the consequences? Don't think it ventures any SCIENTIFIC OPINION on THAT important bit does it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

And why should we take you seriously? You're quoting silly generalitities about consensus. I'm giving you the published results of ACTUAL 100 question polling of Climate scientists. There is NO obvious consensus on the IMPORTANT questions of GW science.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.

And that's exactly what the entire issue is.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

I see that you can't answer, but have to say that not once have you made a supportable argument about consensus, while you ignore Flacalteen's consensus charts with your empty replies.

You need to get off the consensus bandwagon as that is a perfect example of the LOW science literacy thinking from people like you who rely on it so much. People who understand what drives science research would not be wasting time arguing consensus, but published reproducible papers that drives debate.

Consensus positions have been wrong MANY many times in the past, surely that should open your eyes to that reality, but you don't because you have no science based arguments to fall on, which is why you push the consensus nonsense so hard.

 

[flacaltenn]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

Did you read the results of the Recent Mann - Curry debate? You ever ask Dr Spencer or Dr Christy at UAH their opinion? Now you'll be lying if you make that statement again. Because you can't say you've never once run into any...

 

[flacaltenn]

Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent that. Okay,"mod action"... Better?

Well now we're talking I guess.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

Did you read the results of the Recent Mann - Curry debate? You ever ask Dr Spencer or Dr Christy at UAH their opinion? Now you'll be lying if you make that statement again. Because you can't say you've never once run into any...

He forgot the Oregon Petition Project (31,000 people) , or the 1350+ published papers or the 93 skeptic papers for 2014 and a lot more for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the point being that there are many who don't agree with the IPCC's position on the AGW conjecture.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That wasn't a poll.

Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.

And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science

Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.
Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.