So much for the "consensus" myth....

[Saigon]

SSDD-

The percentage that say that most warming is due to human activity is even smaller.

Please post honestly.

We both know that the overwehelming majority of scientists and the overwhelming majority of scientific research backs AGW - and we both know that the number of scientists who oppose that position are miniscule.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD-

The percentage that say that most warming is due to human activity is even smaller.

Please post honestly.

We both know that the overwehelming majority of scientists and the overwhelming majority of scientific research backs AGW - and we both know that the number of scientists who oppose that position are miniscule.

Actually we both know that you are delusional and there is no actual science to back up AGW. There is not one piece of actual observed, measured evidence to support the cliam that a trace gas in the atmosphere is the control knob for the global climate, much less evidence to support the claim that man's small contribution is responsible.

What you have is the output of failing computer models as far as the eye can see and you claim that is science....perhaps because you wouldn't know what science was if it bit you on the ass.

 

[SSDD]

Certainly if papers were deliberately misclassified, that is discgraceful and indefensible, but I'd certainly prefer to hear it from a reliable source.

The scientists themselves aren't reliable? What else but dishonesty could you possibly expect from someone like cook?

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"[/COLOR]

Which is further evidence that cook and his cronies didn't have the slightest clue as to what they were doing.

 

[Bfgrn]

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

The human fingerprint in global warming

The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that we’re causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming

 

[Saigon]

Certainly if papers were deliberately misclassified, that is discgraceful and indefensible, but I'd certainly prefer to hear it from a reliable source.

The scientists themselves aren't reliable? What else but dishonesty could you possibly expect from someone like cook?

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"[/COLOR]

Which is further evidence that cook and his cronies didn't have the slightest clue as to what they were doing.

Firstly - of the several hundred papers involved, the site you linked to have statements from only 4 or 5 scientists.

Can you confirm that NO scientists suggested that their papers should have been classified as confirming AGW, when Cook listed them as neutral?

No, you can't, because your source won't tell you those things.

It just amazes me that you cannot think these things through yourself!

Secondly - this is further evidence that you and yourcornies have the slightest clue what you are doing, because you gortesquely twisted the facts here to suit your own agenda.

If you want to attack scientific integirty - maybe show some yourself?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're a bullshitting fellow is what you are.Why call yourself a astrophysical modeler then?

I model astrophysical systems.

OK. Good for you.

So there is no consensus on GR?



So there is?

So the reason most gravity papers don't state a position is because the authors were able to predict there would be no studies of GR consensus in future papers?

Your contention would be that it was too silly to expect those papers (the 66%) to cite AGW as definitive cause because it's assumed as such due to its wide acceptance. Correct? LOL,okay then please explain why they state that 32% did that very thing? Or why they even included the 66% in the report? If they didn't address the cause they should't have mattered in the results if your assumptions are correct..

But your assumptions aren't correct poopie. They didn't search for AGW caused global warming or global climate change, they searched for global warming or global climate change. They did that so they could lager volumes of papers in the search and give the study weight. The trouble is their assumption was wrong in regards to what scientist think on it, and their results showed it. So they fudge the analysis by stressing the superfluous and downplaying the pertinent numbers.

They did what a good fake scientist/failed cartoonist/ blog writer would do and change the presentation.

LOL sucker.

A search for "AGW caused global warming" would be biased towards papers that claim AGW is the cause of global warming, wouldn't it?

LOL, broken down into citing every line now? What your "astrophysics modeler brain can't follow a point without quoting each sentence?

You're another BS internet scientist, nothing more. We have seen it here all too many times now. You immature idiots talk yourselves into an indefensible position and then pull "I'm a physicist" or "I'm a scientist" or "I'm whatever I can think up that to help my sorry ass appear the winner" out of your singular or collective butts..

Sure, sure poopie, you're an astrophysical modeler. You made a model of the solar system out of Styrofoam balls and finger-paints at last years science fair.

You're a physicist and I'm Batman...

And your immature false claim about the conversation is duly noted.

Actually I model double white dwarfs on HPC's.

 

[SSDD]

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

In order for those pieces of "evidence" to mean anything, you must assume that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause more warming. That is an assumption since there doesn't exist a single bit of observed, measured, empirical data to prove that assumption.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

Someone has been yanking your chain if you believe that satellites are measuring less heat escaping into space in those wavelengths.

These two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

The next image clearly shows an increase in outgoing long wave radiation since 1975 in direct contrast to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means,
via the KNMI Climate Explorer

6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

There are not and never have been direct measurements of backradiation from the atmosphere to the ground taken at ambient temperature. Anyone claiming to be taking such direct measurements does not know or understand what his instrument is measuring. The only instruments that measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere towards the warmer surface of the earth have been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

Pure supposition not supported by actual data.

8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

The smoking gun fingerprint of manmade warming was supposed to have been a hot spot in the troposphere...no such hot spot has ever been measured despite literally hundreds of thousands of radiosondes sent up to take such measurements. The claim of a cooling stratosphere only became part of the AGW hypothesis afterit became painfully clear that the hot spot in the troposphere was never going to materialize.

Cooling in the stratosphere would be expected with the halt in warming that the earth has experienced for going on 2 decades now.

9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

No warming troposphere for damned near two decades...and no rising tropopause since the warming stopped.

In short, you have nothing more than a few claims based on the unfounded, uproven assumption that CO2 is a control knob for the cliamte on earth.

 

[gslack]

I model astrophysical systems.

OK. Good for you.

So there is no consensus on GR?



So there is?

So the reason most gravity papers don't state a position is because the authors were able to predict there would be no studies of GR consensus in future papers?



A search for "AGW caused global warming" would be biased towards papers that claim AGW is the cause of global warming, wouldn't it?

LOL, broken down into citing every line now? What your "astrophysics modeler brain can't follow a point without quoting each sentence?

You're another BS internet scientist, nothing more. We have seen it here all too many times now. You immature idiots talk yourselves into an indefensible position and then pull "I'm a physicist" or "I'm a scientist" or "I'm whatever I can think up that to help my sorry ass appear the winner" out of your singular or collective butts..

Sure, sure poopie, you're an astrophysical modeler. You made a model of the solar system out of Styrofoam balls and finger-paints at last years science fair.

You're a physicist and I'm Batman...

And your immature false claim about the conversation is duly noted.

Actually I model double white dwarfs on HPC's.

Sure poopie sure.