Apparently not because if scientists exclude urban temperature stations they get different result.
More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #282
Once again, you just making claims is not very convincing. I'm quite certain that the world's climate scientists have dealt with UHI in the most logical,reasonable and scientifically valid fashion possible. I'm quite certain that global warming is not an artifact of UHI. And I'm most certain, due primarily to the almost complete absence of supporting evidence or evidence of your understanding of basic scientific processes, that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about on any topic you're ever spoken to in this forum.
- Thread starter
- #283
Poster elektra has accused me of plagiarizing Mark Lynas, the primary author of the study on which the OP's linked, Cornell Chronicle article is based. When he made that charge, I responded with the claim that I had never read a word by Mark Lynas as the name was completely unfamiliar to me. He brought this up in another thread, but it obviously also belongs here. This is a copy of my last post in that thread
The study is open access and may be read at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience
Benjamin Z Houlton: Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
Simon Perry: Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
AND, jumping ahead
Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.
Feel free to follow the link and read the actual study. A discussion of this really belongs in the other thread and so I will copy this post there.
FINALLY:
1) Are you still accusing me of plagiarism? The complete text of the original article and the Lynas, Houlton and Perry study are fully accessible.
2) If so, we need to see some evidence.
3) If you are unable to find evidence of plagiarism, you should withdraw that charge
4) If you do not find evidence and you do not withdraw the charge, we will know which of us is the liar.
At one point I had the word "knowingly" in there. Regret, regret, regret...
That is not quite correct. I created a thread based on an article in the Cornell Chronicle byKrishna RamanujanCrick created a thread/OP based on the study by Mark Lynas.
More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change AND https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Abstract While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the...www.usmessageboard.com
Yes, by Krishna RamanujanIn that OP, cricks opening comment contains the link to an article
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.news.cornell.edu
Your comment didn't come across, but it was indeed by Mark Lynas and, more importantly, Lynas was the lead author of the actual study on which the article was based.
The link I posted was actually to an article written by Krishna Ramanujan. I see now that the first author of the study the article was based on was indeed Mark Lynas. You got me there. I have read of numerous studies concerning the positions of the authors of published climate studies and so did not bother to dig deep into the authors of the study behind the article. I did read the beginning of the study but paid no attention to who its authors might have been. But, since you bring it up, let's have a look at the the thing, eh.
The study is open access and may be read at Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
The study was authored by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon PerryAuthor affiliations
Mark Lynas: Visiting Fellow, Cornell University, Global Development, Alliance for Science, B75 Mann Library, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of AmericaBenjamin Z Houlton: Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
Simon Perry: Alliance for Science, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States of America
Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.AND, jumping ahead
5. Conclusion
Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land' [13].Our finding is that the broadly-defined scientific consensus likely far exceeds 99% regarding the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in modern climate change, and may even be as high as 99.9%. Of course, the prevalence of mis/disinformation about the role of GHG emissions in modern climate change is unlikely to be driven purely by genuine scientific illiteracy or lack of understanding [14]. Even so, in our view it remains important to continue to inform society on the state of the evidence. According to the IPCC AR6 summary and many other previous studies, mitigating future warming requires urgent efforts to eliminate fossil fuels combustion and other major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Our study helps confirm that there is no remaining scientific uncertainty about the urgency and gravity of this task.
Feel free to follow the link and read the actual study. A discussion of this really belongs in the other thread and so I will copy this post there.
FINALLY:
1) Are you still accusing me of plagiarism? The complete text of the original article and the Lynas, Houlton and Perry study are fully accessible.
2) If so, we need to see some evidence.
3) If you are unable to find evidence of plagiarism, you should withdraw that charge
4) If you do not find evidence and you do not withdraw the charge, we will know which of us is the liar.
/----/ How dare you copy someone's fake climate scam? You gotta come up with your own scam.
- Thread starter
- #285
; - )
elektra
Diamond Member
Crick is not lying when crick states he has never read a word written by Mark Lynas, one of the authors of the study crick links to the most.
you got me there, crick, you have never ever read a word from your favorite researcher, Lynas!!!
Crick also claims he has thousands of pages of the papers they based the study on, great, start posting them, we want to read them. Post the thousands of pages, you post this one tired piece of propaganda, now give us the articles.
Lazy piece of crap has never read a word from this study. Yet Crick has used it 100's of times. Hell, the author's name is at the top of the study. You dont have to read the study to see the name of the author. Even I know the name of crick's favorite study yet crick did not.
/-------/ More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies agreed that the Earth was the center of the Universe -- but there was this one guy - a center of universe denier who was ridiculed and thrown in jail.More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
AND
Abstract
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
This guy disagrees....
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
Dr. Clauser had previously criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming and told President Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies. Dr. Clauser has developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process to existing models. The process involves the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth’s temperature.
More recently, he addressed the Korea Quantum Conference where he stated, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.
Nobel Laureate Silenced - CO2 Coalition
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund...
co2coalition.org
(Thanks Missourian for this link)
They have such confidence in their man made global warming cult that their favorite debate strategy....is to ban people who disagree with them....
According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Report: Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser — who recently declared climate science a ‘pseudoscience’ — has his IMF talk abruptly canceled • Watts Up With That?
...the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
wattsupwiththat.com
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #289
Lynas is not my favorite researcher. I don't HAVE a favorite researcher. It's not like those fan magazines you buy to get the latest shots of the Kardashians. I had never heard his name till you pointed it out to me (admittedly, in the article to which I'd linked).
If you go to AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC you will find 16,562 of them listed in the 12 chapters' Reference pages. Here is the first of the 455 pages of Reference studies from AR6's "The Physical Science Basis".
1) Abraham, J.P. et al., 2013: A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics, 51(3), 450–483, doi:10.1002/rog.20022.
2) Abram, N. et al., 2019: Framing and Context of the Report. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, and N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In Press, pp. 73–129, www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/ chapter-1-framing-and-context-of-the-report.
3) Abram, N.J. et al., 2016: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents. Nature, 536(7617), 411–418, doi:10.1038/nature19082.
4) Abramowitz, G. et al., 2019: ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing. Earth System Dynamics, 10(1), 91–105, doi:10.5194/esd-10-91-2019.
5) Adler, C.E. and G. Hirsch Hadorn, 2014: The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus. WIREs Climate Change, 5(5), 663–676, doi:10.1002/wcc.297.
6) Aguilera-Betti, I. et al., 2017: The First Millennium-Age Araucaria Araucana in Patagonia. Tree-Ring Research, 73(1), 53–56, doi:10.3959/ 1536-1098-73.1.53.
7) Ahn, M.-S. et al., 2017: MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process-oriented diagnosis. Climate Dynamics, 49(11–12), 4023–4045, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3558-4.
8) Air Ministry – Meteorological Office, 1921: Réseau Mondial, 1914: Monthly and Annual Summaries of Pressure, Temperature, and Precipitation At Land Stations. H.M. Stationery Office, London, UK, iii-vii pp.
9) Aitken, J., 1889: I. – On the Number of Dust Particles in the Atmosphere. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 35(1), 1–19, doi:10.1017/ s0080456800017592.
10) Albrecht, B.A., 1989: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness. Science, 245(4923), 1227–1230, doi:10.1126/science.245.4923.1227.
11) Alexander, C. et al., 2011: Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change. BioScience, 61(6), 477–484, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10.
12) Alexander, L. et al., 2020: Intercomparison of annual precipitation indices and extremes over global land areas from in situ, space-based and reanalysis products. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 055002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e2.
13) Alkhayuon, H., P. Ashwin, L.C. Jackson, C. Quinn, and R.A. Wood, 2019: Basin bifurcations, oscillatory instability and rate-induced thresholds for Atlantic meridional overturning circulation in a global oceanic box model. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 475(2225), 20190051, doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0051.
14) Allan, R. et al., 2011: The International Atmospheric Circulation Reconstructions over the Earth (ACRE) Initiative. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92(11), 1421–1425, doi:10.1175/2011bams3218.1.
15) Allan, R.P. et al., 2020: Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1472(1), 49–75, doi:10.1111/nyas.14337.
16) Allen, M.R. and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419(6903), 228–232, doi:10.1038/nature01092.
17) Allen, M.R. et al., 2009: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458(7242), 1163–1166, doi:10.1038/nature08019.
18) Allen, M.R. et al., 2016: New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 773–776, doi:10.1038/nclimate2998.
19) Anagnostou, E. et al., 2020: Proxy evidence for state-dependence of climate sensitivity in the Eocene greenhouse. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4436, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17887-x.
20) Anav, A. et al., 2013: Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models. Journal of Climate, 26(18), 6801–6843, doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00417.1.
21) Anchukaitis, K.J. et al., 2017: Last millennium Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings: Part II, spatially resolved reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews, 163, 1–22, doi:10.1016/j. quascirev.2017.02.020.
22) Anderson, A.A. and H.E. Huntington, 2017: Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620, doi:10.1177/1075547017735113.
23) André, J.-C. et al., 2014: High-Performance Computing for Climate Modeling. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(5), ES97–ES100, doi:10.1175/bams-d-13-00098.1.
24) Andrews, T., P.M. Forster, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin, and A. Jones, 2010: Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(14), L14701, doi:10.1029/2010gl043991.
25) Angerer, B. et al., 2017: Quality aspects of the Wegener Center multi-satellite GPS radio occultation record OPSv5.6. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(12), 4845–4863, doi:10.5194/amt-10-4845-2017.
26) Ångström, A., 1929: On the Atmospheric Transmission of Sun Radiation and on Dust in the Air. Geografiska Annaler, 11(2), 156–166, doi:10.1080/200 14422.1929.11880498.
27) Ångström, A., 1964: The parameters of atmospheric turbidity. Tellus, 16(1), 64–75, doi:10.3402/tellusa.v16i1.8885.
28) Ångström, K., 1900: Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre. Annalen der Physik, 308(12), 720–732, doi:10.1002/andp.19003081208.
29) Annan, J.D. and J.C. Hargreaves, 2017: On the meaning of independence in climate science. Earth System Dynamics, 8(1), 211–224, doi:10.5194/ esd-8-211-2017.
30) Anterrieu, E., A. Khazaal, F. Cabot, and Y. Kerr, 2016: Geolocation of RFI sources with sub-kilometric accuracy from SMOS interferometric data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 180, 76–84, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.007.
31) Anthes, R.A., 2011: Exploring Earth’s atmosphere with radio occultation: contributions to weather, climate and space weather. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 4(6), 1077–1103, doi:10.5194/amt-4-1077-2011.
32) Arnold, J.R. and W.F. Libby, 1949: Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age. Science, 110, 678–680, doi:10.1126/ science.110.2869.678.
33) Arora, V.K. et al., 2020: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences, 17(16), 4173–4222, doi:10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020.
34) Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41(251), 237–276, doi:10.1080/14786449608620846.
35) Arrhenius, S., 1908: Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, USA and London, UK, 230 pp.
36) Asay-Davis, X.S., N.C. Jourdain, and Y. Nakayama, 2017: Developments in Simulating and Parameterizing Interactions Between the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Current Climate Change Reports, 3(4), 316329, doi:10.1007/s40641-017-0071-0.
37) Ashton, T.S., 1997: The Industrial Revolution 1760-1830. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 162 pp.
38) Ashwin, P., S. Wieczorek, R. Vitolo, and P. Cox, 2012: Tipping points in open systems: bifurcation, noise-induced and rate-dependent examples in the climate system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370(1962), 1166–1184, doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0306.
That is false. I never paid any attention to the names of the authors. It seems extremely likely that YOU'VE never read it because every comment you've made about it is demonstrably incorrect.
That is also false.
Just as with every single topic you've ever brought up here, you don't know jack shit. Like wind turbines and "Heavy Industry" and physics and chemistry and thermodynamics.
So, are you still accusing me of plagiarism?
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
- Thread starter
- #291
Maybe that's why she's no longer employed as a science researcher. Incompetence.
There's a paper on this very subject. I've shared it with you dozens of times. It is disingenuous of you to pretend an argument hasn't been made. Hence there is no consensus.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
Consensus only means the narrative is true. We know that is not the case.
If we were to judge the beliefs of the world by the actions of the world we can only conclude from their ever increasing carbon emissions that they don't believe their actions will lead to a catastrophe.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
The more CO2 in our atmosphere the better and bigger the crops. This is depopulation at work. It is also meant to destroy Western civilization by destroying capitalism.
- Thread starter
- #296
Was the invention of the automobile at attempt to destroy western civilization? The steam engine? How about the light bulb? The electric motor? The computer?
Are you guys in some sort of club with a maximum IQ limit for membership? Like... 80?
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
No I said Climate change is a fucking lie.
- Thread starter
- #298
It is not. Your claim fails several basic sanity tests.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
Yours fails more.
- Thread starter
- #300
The position of mainstream science is based on thousands of studies by thousands of scientists from all over the planet and absolute mountains of evidence. The idea that all of them have been acting in perfect coordination for decades fabricating all of these data and studies without a single miss, conflict or confession is clearly insane.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Mexico’s President Says She Denied Trump Offer To Target Cartels With US Troops
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 3
-
Zone1 Everybody Worships....The Choice is....- Started by PoliticalChic
- Replies: 2
-
