How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[abu afak]

Wiki consensus link with list of study percentages.
Excerpted the later ones. The consensus has GROWN over the last 20 years, 10 years, etc.


""...A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150]
His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only Five articles by Four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]
Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change.
Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted(20+ papers published).[4]
[.......]

`

 

[jc456]

Wiki link cont'sd with list of percentage consensus
Excerp


""...A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

then why is there this?

 

[jc456]

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Environmental Research Letters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

abu afak

 

[Paracetamol63]

it is clear you are flinging pooh on a wall and think I'm gonna accept your pooh. Nope. Again, if you choose to use percentages then I want the counts that is derived from.

I honestly wish I could have helped you understand my point. Have you ever had a statistics class? They talk a lot about this concept in statistics, I think.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As you wish.

Don't pull a hamstring running away.

 

[abu afak]

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Environmental Research Letters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

abu afak

I won't call you a Liar because you are just Breathtakingly Stupid and a last-wording/OCD ONE LINE TROLL.
The article names and dates the Meta and Peer Reviewed studies, and Footnotes them. [10]
They can then be clicked on.
Bye 62 IQ guy.
Gratuitously Multi-post away.
`

 

[Paracetamol63]

Don't pull a hamstring running away.

?

 

[jc456]

I honestly wish I could have helped you understand my point

I understand your point, you don’t have one

 

[Paracetamol63]

I understand your point, you don’t have one

At least give me the benefit of the doubt that perhaps I know what I'm talking about.

The reason early on I sent the link to the article about "Samples and Populations" because it's critical to how a lot of science is done.

Samples are KNOWN quantities from an UNKNOWN LARGER POPULATION.

Percentages calculated from SAMPLES can be leveraged to estimate the breakdown in the larger (unknown) population.

There are papers published showing percentages of various animal populations that have this or that affliction. Do you honestly think they are measuring every single animal on the planet? No, they take a sample. Because there's no way to know about every member of some populations.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[jc456]

At least give me the benefit of the doubt that perhaps I know what I'm talking about

Why would I do that? It seems you have no clue! You throw percentage numbers around without any supporting figures

 

[Paracetamol63]

Why would I do that? It seems you have no clue! You throw percentage numbers around without any supporting figures

I can only recommend taking a class in statistics. It will be much more clear then.

 

[jc456]

There are papers published showing percentages of various animal populations that have this or that affliction. Do you honestly think they are measuring every single animal on the planet?

They make estimations based on location and data collected for that environment. It is studied.

 

[jc456]

I won't call you a Liar because you are just Breathtakingly Stupid and a last-wording/OCD ONE LINE TROLL.
The article names and dates the Meta and Peer Reviewed studies, and Footnotes them. [10]
They can then be clicked on.
Bye 62 IQ guy.
Gratuitously Multi-post away.
`

I pulled that from your link. So you disagree with your own link

 

[jc456]

I can only recommend taking a class in statistics. It will be much more clear then.

You need your own advice.

 

[Stann]

Last I heard it's less than 5% of the actual climate scientists who are skeptical of the core concept.



Please don't use language like that. It is offensive. Thanks!

Wait a second. This creep is calling you retarded. He's a troll, just give up on him, he's not worth it. He offers nothing but complaints that have no basis in fact.

 

[Stann]

So it isn’t cheaper right?

You don't get it it's essential that we've chang systems. Startup costs going to be expensive, but the savings in the end justified the cost. And there are plenty of costs to take into consideration environmental, societal, industrial, military, infrastructure as well as financial. Financial would be the least to be concerned about.

 

[Stann]

Wait a second. This creep is calling you retarded. He's a troll, just give up on him, he's not worth it. He offers nothing but complaints that have no basis in fact.

He keeps asking for all this information but she could easily look up himself and then he argues about it as if you can argue with facts. He is definitely a TROLL.

 

[MisterBeale]

At least 95% of the country would benefit from solar panels. There's a small section of the Pacific Northwest which is least feasible for installation and productivity.

I knew you were dumb, I just didn't think you were THIS dumb.

The Pacific NW is known to have a lot of rain, but there are many other parts of the nation that have more cloud cover on more days than that location. Living in the Great Lakes region, we have always been told by local weather men, that we have less sunny days than Seattle.

You now have, officially, very little credibility and well known stupidity in my eyes.

Saginaw Bay comes in the same as Spokane WA, at overcast 52% of the time.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about most of the time.

Top 10 Gloomiest Cities in the US | Move.org

We looked at climate data to find out which cities have the most cloudy days each year. Read Move.org’s guide to find out which US cities are gloomiest.

www.move.org

 

[MisterBeale]

The past three weeks have been dreadful here, this is the first sunny day I have seen in about 12 days.

 

[jc456]

You don't get it it's essential that we've chang systems. Startup costs going to be expensive, but the savings in the end justified the cost. And there are plenty of costs to take into consideration environmental, societal, industrial, military, infrastructure as well as financial. Financial would be the least to be concerned about.

What savings? You all got your heads up your butts.

Defend the savings