More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
And there you are again showing the class how you simply can't read printed words. My quote from the post--

tell us more about how many scientists make up 97%? please, share with the class.

You are really just stupid.

It was a SAMPLE. Samples are quite commonly used in science. It appears that in Cook it was 4,014 papers that expressed a position in re AGW while in that same study a subset was sself-analyzed by the actual authors (1,381 papers) and both arrived at a 97% consensus.

Every drug you currently take that the doctor prescribed was tested for efficacy and safety based on a sample of the overall population. By necessity this is always less than the full population.

From Cook we learn about the Cook13 study which outlines how many were in the given cohort:

"Following a similar methodology, C13 analysed the abstracts of 11 944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that matched the search terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ in the ISI Web of Science search engine. Among the 4014 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% were judged as having implicitly or explicitly endorsed the consensus. In addition, the study authors were invited to rate their own papers, based on the contents of the full paper, not just the abstract. Amongst 1381 papers self-rated by their authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."

One of the critiques in Cook about earlier studies sums up the problem:

"Tol (2016) effectively treats no-position abstracts as rejecting AGW, thereby deriving consensus values less than 35%. Equating no-position papers with rejection or an uncertain position on AGW is inconsistent wit the expectation of decreasing reference to a consensual position as that consensus strengthens (Oreskes 2007, Shwed and Bearman 2010). Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol’s method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking ‘no position’."

I find it interesting that by Tol's methodology plate tectonics wouldn't even be considered a scientific consensus. (hint: PT is extremely well established and generally a consensus exists that it is real).

Anderegg's study from 2010 utilized 1,372 authors and papers which independently from Cook et al. arrived at a similar 97% consensus.

This is how science works. Multiple independent analyses arriving at a similar response.
 
It's a single event and can't be used to draw any statistically robust conclusions.

But, that being said, AGW is expected to alter local climates and weather patterns. This will lead to some degree of instability. Global warming may explain more of the polar vortexes we see these days as the jet stream circulation is altered bringing more cold weather down into the lower 48. Granted the current "snowing in PNW" is due to some Pacific front and may have absolutely nothing to do with any megatrends.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahhhhaaahhahhh......

I didn't make any conclusions at all you CO2 sniffing dummy!

Your obsession over a trace gas with a trace IR absorption is making you DUMB!

Your claim about what caused polar vortex's come down is stupid because it was more common during the global cooling time of the 1950- to the 1970's such as the famous January 1977 polar express.
 
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahhhhaaahhahhh......

I didn't make any conclusions at all you CO2 sniffing dummy!

I realize that. I was just putting a frame around it given that it was posted in a discussion forum about AGW

Your claim about what caused polar vortex's come down is stupid because it was more common during the global cooling time of the 1950- to the 1970's such as the famous January 1977 polar express.

" The change is warming higher latitudes and reducing the temperature difference between the warmer mid-latitude and polar regions. This weakens and destabilizes the polar jet stream, causing it to dip into lower latitudes, bringing polar air farther south."

 
I'm sure there were record heat waves around the rest of the globe to ensure that average. Ask PV.

This is a distribution:

standard-normal-distribution-1024x633.png

Do you know what that means?
 
I realize that. I was just putting a frame around it given that it was posted in a discussion forum about AGW




" The change is warming higher latitudes and reducing the temperature difference between the warmer mid-latitude and polar regions. This weakens and destabilizes the polar jet stream, causing it to dip into lower latitudes, bringing polar air farther south."


You did it because you are irrationally obsessed with a trace gas with a trace IR absorption range.

You mentioned AGW only and left out dozens of other possible weather variables over and over that can effect weather systems and in the long run real Climate changes that is why you say the same shit I have seem for years from you single issue warmist/alarmists it is DUMB!

That is why you get the shit from many here.
 
You did it because you are irrationally obsessed with a trace gas with a trace IR absorption range.

It is a "trace gas" that is a major player in why the earth's surface temperature is higher than the black body radiation temperature.

You mentioned AGW only and left out dozens of other possible weather variables over and over that can effect weather systems and in the long run real Climate changes that is why you say the same shit I have seem for years from you single issue warmist/alarmists it is DUMB!

That is why you get the shit from many here.

You seem overly aggravated today. Perhaps you should relax a bit?
 
It is a "trace gas" that is a major player in why the earth's surface temperature is higher than the black body radiation temperature.



You seem overly aggravated today. Perhaps you should relax a bit?

Why do you lie so much?

It isn't a major player anymore because the main warm forcing power dropped off rapidly after the first 150 ppm now it is barely adding anymore at the 430 ppm level.

It is clear you are no scientist.
 
It isn't a major player anymore because the main warm forcing power dropped off rapidly after the first 150 ppm now it is barely adding anymore at the 430 ppm level.

While it is a log function it is not yet "saturated" in terms of IR absorption. There is band broadening etc. But more importantly more CO2 increases the elevation at which IR re-radiates back out into space. As that level increases it becomes less and less efficient because there is less gas available at higher altitudes.
 
The earth's experts disagree with you. You should definitely publish your findings so you can collect your Nobel.
"the earth's experts" ???? No, they do not agree, the ones being paid by the AGW cabal agree, the ones working on their own say its a hoax and a lie.
 
It's a single event and can't be used to draw any statistically robust conclusions.

But, that being said, AGW is expected to alter local climates and weather patterns. This will lead to some degree of instability. Global warming may explain more of the polar vortexes we see these days as the jet stream circulation is altered bringing more cold weather down into the lower 48. Granted the current "snowing in PNW" is due to some Pacific front and may have absolutely nothing to do with any megatrends.
isn't that the same as any other one day or one week event? Why is it demofks don't say that when discussing a hot day or a severe storm?

demofks at their norm that everything is global warming. It's why predictions always fail. Always.
 
isn't that the same as any other one day or one week event? Why is it demofks don't say that when discussing a hot day or a severe storm?

demofks at their norm that everything is global warming. It's why predictions always fail. Always.

I'm not talking about whomever you are referencing here. I'm telling you what actual scientists say. This is basic scientific inference.
 
No, you are LYING since you make it seem that only CO2 is causing the warming since YOU ignored the many known weather variables that can cause warming.

Here is a fine post laying out the well-known diminishing rate of CO2 warm forcing effect.

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature​

August 2014
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

Excerpts:

Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.

The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.​



IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].

LINK

=====

1649959669754.png


A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm).

The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response (TCR, the average temperature response centered around the time of CO2 doubling) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the temperature response upon reaching an equilibrium state after doubling) are shown to be declining from an average of about 3°C earlier in the century to below 2°C and edging towards 1°C for the more recent years.

LINK
 
Last edited:
Looks like half a sine wave. You know what that is?

No it doesn't. A sine wave doesn't flatten out on the tails like that.

1649959232272.png


You see the areas where it crosses the solid line? Yeah, that's not the same as a Gaussian distribution.

This is the equation for a Gaussian Distribution:

bellformula-56b749555f9b5829f8380dc8.jpg
 
No, you are LYING since you make it seem that only CO2 is causing the warming

I have NEVER SAID THAT. NOT ONCE. CO2 is a major forcing but it isn't the only one.

I have NEVER said it was the only reason for warming. NOT. ONCE.

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature​

August 2014
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

Excerpts:

Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.

The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.​



IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].

LINK

As noted earlier, it is a LOG function (I assume you understand the implications), but again, that is not the only part of CO2's greenhouse gas effect.

The folks at Columbia University can explain it better for you.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top