The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

[gslack]

Only a true trolling hack would re-post the same thing as much as trollingblunder has..... Anyone who wasn't sure just how much honesty there is left in the AGW corwd, need look no further to see its not about truth or science but selling an agenda....

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

American Geophysical Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.

The mission of the AGU is

* to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public,
* to promote cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines,
* to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs,
* to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information.

The AGU was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1972 AGU was incorporated in the District of Columbia and membership was opened to scientists and students worldwide.

AGU is the publisher of several scientific periodicals, including the weekly Eos newspaper and eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.

**************************************************

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate

Print Version (34781 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 84, NO. 51, doi:10.1029/2003EO510005, 2003

Abstract

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(51), doi:10.1029/2003EO510005.

Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.

&

Human Impacts on Climate

Print Version (43336 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 89, NO. 5, doi:10.1029/2008EO050006, 2008

Abstract

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

Published 29 January 2008.

Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(5), doi:10.1029/2008EO050006.

Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[gslack]

BLAH BLAH BLAH....BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!

The end is coming! Look at all my evidence which all comes from the same bullshit pseudo-science already shown to be fraudulent....

REPENT I SAY!

 

[westwall]

I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.

But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.

What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?

Obama is killing our space program at a time when we're finding hundreds of planets around almost every star. It is one big joke what he is doing to our space program. Also co2 as a green house is a joke. Don't point to Venus for your answers because its Atmosphere is 97 percent co2 and is 20 million miles closer to the sun then earth. Far more solar input. No oceans either like we on earth to have to trap it and to keep our planet at a constant temperature.

I just feel that we humans need a nice hot prod to get back into the exploring mood.

Mathew I have to say I concur with everything you say. However we don't need some crisis to motivate our exploration....we need money. There are plenty of people who wish to head out into space but we keep pissing the money away on BS like GW.

 

[westwall]

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

American Geophysical Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.

The mission of the AGU is

* to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public,
* to promote cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines,
* to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs,
* to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information.

The AGU was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1972 AGU was incorporated in the District of Columbia and membership was opened to scientists and students worldwide.

AGU is the publisher of several scientific periodicals, including the weekly Eos newspaper and eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.

**************************************************

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate

Print Version (34781 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 84, NO. 51, doi:10.1029/2003EO510005, 2003

Abstract

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(51), doi:10.1029/2003EO510005.

Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.

&

Human Impacts on Climate

Print Version (43336 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 89, NO. 5, doi:10.1029/2008EO050006, 2008

Abstract

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

Published 29 January 2008.

Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(5), doi:10.1029/2008EO050006.

Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Blunder take a look at my other posts....nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore. 25% belief and falling with no end in sight. You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?" Face it you lost...now go away.

 

[Old Rocks]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

Sorry, Zander old boy, science is indeed about consensus. We accept evolution as the explanation of the life we see on this planet today because almost all the scientists in the world that study the subject state that by the evidence they see and present, that is the only explanation that fits.

Today, the vast majority of scientists in the field of earth sciences state that the globe is warming, and the primary driver of that warming is GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus far, no scientists have presented credible evidence to show that this is not the case. And the evidence for it has been presented since 1820.

At the time of Copernicus, there were no 'scientists'. The scientific method had yet to be invented. It was through the efforts of Copernicus, Galileo, and many, many others that the scientific method came into being much later than either gentleman.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, every one has seen the drivel you present in your posts. Shit from the political sites with zero scientific revelance. Thunder presented abstracts from one of the premier peer reviewed scientific journals in existance.

 

[Old Rocks]

BLAH BLAH BLAH....BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!

The end is coming! Look at all my evidence which all comes from the same bullshit pseudo-science already shown to be fraudulent....

REPENT I SAY!

Hey, ol' Suckee..... chimes in again with the usual idiocy. Oh well, when faces with real evidence contrary to living in some alternative reality, retreat inot insults and nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

<snip>

][/B]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes. That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.

The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it

 

[Old Rocks]

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.

It's not and it's not.

And when, in the period that we have had predictive science, have we had an adrupt climate change? No, we are not knowledgeable enough in this area at present to state that when we cross this clearly delineated threshold, we will see climate change.

But we do know from past geological history that the thresholds exist, and, that when crossed, the result has been very bad for life existing at that time.

What we are seeing the climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and geo-physicists engaged in today is real science. They are measuring the rapid changes in the atmospheric circulation, the changing wind patterns, and the changes in the ice in the alpine glaciers and ice caps. All the evidence points to the conclusion that we are near, or already past that threshold.

You who cackle with derision at the presentation of these scientists are the some type of people that put Galileo to torture. Luddites willfully ignorant and afraid of reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes. That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.

The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it

There is plenty of proxy evidence for the event, the eruptions of the Siberian Trapps, and the resultant rapid increase in GHGs that caused the P-T Extinction. No evidence of a K-T type impact or Gamma ray burst.

Methane Catastrophe

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes. That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.

The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it

There is plenty of proxy evidence for the event, the eruptions of the Siberian Trapps, and the resultant rapid increase in GHGs that caused the P-T Extinction. No evidence of a K-T type impact or Gamma ray burst.

Methane Catastrophe

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..""

Your AGW colored glasses tint your worldview

 

[code1211]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

Sorry, Zander old boy, science is indeed about consensus. We accept evolution as the explanation of the life we see on this planet today because almost all the scientists in the world that study the subject state that by the evidence they see and present, that is the only explanation that fits.
Today, the vast majority of scientists in the field of earth sciences state that the globe is warming, and the primary driver of that warming is GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus far, no scientists have presented credible evidence to show that this is not the case. And the evidence for it has been presented since 1820.

At the time of Copernicus, there were no 'scientists'. The scientific method had yet to be invented. It was through the efforts of Copernicus, Galileo, and many, many others that the scientific method came into being much later than either gentleman.

The scientists accept evolution due to the overwhelming body of evidence that precludes andy reasonable doubt.

Comparing the science of evolution to the hypothesis of AGW is like comparing the anti matter reactors from Star Trek to the internal combustion engine. One exists in real life and works while the other is theoretically possible but exists only in the minds of some very imaginative people.

 

[code1211]

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

<snip>

][/B]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?

What predictions are you citing? Dr. Hansen's prediction missed by 300% on the warm side. MIT produces a prediction annually that is different from the previous year. One might suppose that if the prediction was right on the first go-round, the succeeding predictions might be similar.

Please post a link to a prediction from 30 years ago that has been shown to be accurate.

 

[code1211]

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.

Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.

How many tens of millions of years agow were these occurances and what was the average prevailing temperature globally at the beginning and end of the phenoms you are citing. Where were the continents?

The differences were so great that the planet then vs. now was for all intents and purposes a different planet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?

What predictions are you citing? Dr. Hansen's prediction missed by 300% on the warm side. MIT produces a prediction annually that is different from the previous year. One might suppose that if the prediction was right on the first go-round, the succeeding predictions might be similar.

Please post a link to a prediction from 30 years ago that has been shown to be accurate.

Let's play everyone favorite pseudo-scientific game:

Wheel of Climate Change!!

 

[code1211]

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.

It's not and it's not.

And when, in the period that we have had predictive science, have we had an adrupt climate change? No, we are not knowledgeable enough in this area at present to state that when we cross this clearly delineated threshold, we will see climate change.

But we do know from past geological history that the thresholds exist, and, that when crossed, the result has been very bad for life existing at that time.

What we are seeing the climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and geo-physicists engaged in today is real science. They are measuring the rapid changes in the atmospheric circulation, the changing wind patterns, and the changes in the ice in the alpine glaciers and ice caps. All the evidence points to the conclusion that we are near, or already past that threshold.

You who cackle with derision at the presentation of these scientists are the some type of people that put Galileo to torture. Luddites willfully ignorant and afraid of reality.

And yet, we are still about 1 degree cooler than we were 8000 years ago and several degrees cooler than before the PETM event started. Go figure.