How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

No, I'm not joking, and the graph is completely relevant. You stick to short periods to prove your point (i.e., the blue trend lines) and ignore the longer, red trend line.

Also,

"Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"

Then you do not understand what is being said to you....the elevator is a joke thing and is not a real graph of global temperature, as it does not use valid IPCC approved data...RSS, HadCrut, etc.,...data that shows there has been about 0.7 C of warming since records began.....and which shows a pause since about 1998.

IPCC predictions are progressively digressing from the observed in time as the pause continues...if you think otherwise...why are the agw team suggesting that the missing heat, to explain the pause, is hiding in the the ocean deeps, and the other 62 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming?

Please don't link to anything that does not use valid IPCC data........this graph uses valid IPCC data....



Edited for typo..

[Ben D]

To the claim that human activity is the "predominate cause of global warming." Rather, CO2 ppm has a forcing factor. More details in the NAS reports shared earlier.

I still don't understand what your point is....I was not arguing about climate science radiative forcing factor of CO2, I didn't even raise it???

"The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[DrEvil]

It's 0.7, not 0.07. You only missed by one order of magnitude.

[Ben D]

^ ....it's not that funny....

[stillrobertpaulsen]

science does not work like that.....if you make a claim...you need to back it up with evidence that supports the claim...that's the whole purpose of peer review....to weed out claims prior to publication, that are not matched by the data provided, so as to not waste everyone's valuable time. It's not up to the peer reviewers to do the work of the researcher.

Ben, in the past I have tried to limit my interaction with you because I felt that our opinions on the subject of Global Warming were so obviously divergent and possibly entrenched that dialogue on the subject was likely to break down into bickering. But I'd like to try again and see if, knowing that we both have our differing opinions that are unlikely to change, we could converse regarding areas where we do agree.

For example, I agree with the statement above that you made. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the scientific method, as well as the process of peer review through which claims can be scrutinized. You appear to be exhibiting the same respect in the statement above, yet reject the predominant peer review findings on AGW. I say 'predominant' because I know you reject the 97% number; not sure whether you think it's closer to 80% or 70%, but even numbers that reduced still represent a predominant consensus. I'd rather not argue that point.

What I would like to know is if there is a specific peer reviewed published work that shows that global warming isn't caused by humans...could you give me a link to that article?

Again, I'm not attempting to operate under the pretense that either of our opinions will be changed. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at your opinion from a scientific perspective.

[Ben D]

Again, go back to the escalator:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

See the green lines? They move up and down readily.

See the blue lines? Lots of pauses in the past.

See the red line? It's moving upward. That's global warming.

Look, the SkS escalator is not a serious scientific graph, it's meant as a take down of skeptics....fair enough as both sides do that.......but I use actual IPCC validated graphs while you past SkS side bar stuff...please desist except in the humour context...

Here is a scientific examination of the the SkS Escalator...it's old hat...but since it seems your new to this, I repeat it. The “Escalator” graphic demonstrates, with cherry-picking you can find low (or high) trends in short periods of a noisy signal. But those short trends are just looking at the _noise_. Which is why proper science includes measuring the statistical significance of the trend to see if it is meaningful. Until he does so, until he numerically demonstrates that a trend has appeared over and above the noise – he’s said _nothing_ of interest. He’s just looking at the noise…

SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.



The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step.



If you want to joke about Sks elevator....click below..

[Ben D]

It's irrelevant because the tax revenues earned will be churned back into the system for more oil consumption.

And that in turn won't matter because of peak oil.

It seems we are coming from different perspectives....I'm appalled at the financial fraud being perpetrated while you seem to be concerned about the consequences wrt how the booty it will be spent...so be it..no problem.

[Ben D]

Ben, in the past I have tried to limit my interaction with you because I felt that our opinions on the subject of Global Warming were so obviously divergent and possibly entrenched that dialogue on the subject was likely to break down into bickering. But I'd like to try again and see if, knowing that we both have our differing opinions that are unlikely to change, we could converse regarding areas where we do agree.

For example, I agree with the statement above that you made. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the scientific method, as well as the process of peer review through which claims can be scrutinized. You appear to be exhibiting the same respect in the statement above, yet reject the predominant peer review findings on AGW. I say 'predominant' because I know you reject the 97% number; not sure whether you think it's closer to 80% or 70%, but even numbers that reduced still represent a predominant consensus. I'd rather not argue that point.

What I would like to know is if there is a specific peer reviewed published work that shows that global warming isn't caused by humans...could you give me a link to that article?

Again, I'm not attempting to operate under the pretense that either of our opinions will be changed. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at your opinion from a scientific perspective.

Hi stillrobertpaulsen, that's the spirit....

The first thing to note is that there has been loads of discussion on this thread about the 97% consensus paper and I can't be bothered to get into all the details again except to say the 97% figure does not stand up when its methodologies are scrutinized by real climate scientists. For example Richard Tol, a UN IPCC Lead Author, has published two papers on it...Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis...but which are paywalled.

This article...97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them....gives some narrative and details of why the Cook et al paper is just plain flawed. Plenty of good reading there....and this important statement from Dr Tol.... "Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy."

In a nutshell...Consensus is irrelevant in science. ...its not the 97% figure...nor does it matter what the real figure is even it could be assessed, because the degree of consensus, or lack thereof, does not reflect scientific truth. So here we have an actual agw climate scientist who has been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, arguing that Cook et al, in publishing flawed papers like the 97% consensus, are playing politics, not science...and are not doing the IPCC and real climate research any service.

As to peer reviewed skeptical papers on agw climate science...so much more reading for you here.....1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism.

So you see stillrobertpaulsen, I keep abreast of climate science developments on both sides...and the centre....known as the luke warmers such as Judith Curry. And I am pleased that we are can engage openly, but pleasantly, though we see things differently for now.

[Ben D]

And your point is?

Nothing more, nothing less. NASA ranks the probability that 2014 was the warmest year at 38 per cent while NOAA is slightly more confident putting the probability at 48 per cent.

From here....."the difference between global mean surface temperature in 2014 and the previous warmest years on record, 2010 and 2005, is measured in just hundredths of a degree on both the NASA and NOAA analyses. This is within the margin of error of the data which means that there is no statistical difference between global temperatures in 2005, 2010 and 2014. " Iow, the margin of error in the process of establishing the global yearly average temperature is greater than the apparent differences....

[stillrobertpaulsen]

In a nutshell...Consensus is irrelevant in science. ...its not the 97% figure...nor does it matter what the real figure is even it could be assessed, because the degree of consensus, or lack thereof, does not reflect scientific truth.

Again, I don't care to argue the point where the 97% figure is concerned. I'm curious what you think the correct number is, but if you don't care to hazard a guess, I'm totally OK with that. I would like to register a mild disagreement with your opinion that "Consensus is irrelevant in science." Granted, 100% agreement is virtually impossible, I'm sure there have been some scientists over the years involved in the Flat Earth Society. But if a consensus of, say, at least 95% doesn't constitute a reflection of scientific reality in your opinion, what do you think of the theory of gravity? If you are of the opinion that Newton's theory was correct, how has that scientific truth been proven?

As to peer reviewed skeptical papers on agw climate science...so much more reading for you here.....1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism.

Thanks for that collection of links. A veritable lifetime of reading material, should one choose to peruse it. I suppose I should have been more specific with my request. I'm particularly interested in reading about peer-reviewed analysis of CO2 not causing global warming. There appear to be nine articles in your link to that point. Do you have a favorite, either from the nine at the link or elsewhere? I'm just curious which article you think, from your own reading, does the best job of scientifically explaining this hypothesis.

On a personal level, I do find the content on display on this Popular Technology website somewhat disconcerting. I've got a major problem with any website out to "debunk" 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially if they exhibit no interest in "debunking" the bullshit in the 9/11 Commission Report. But to peddle that horsecrap along with links disparaging single payer healthcare and engaging in Reefer Madness fearmongering? Reich-wing boilerplate bordering on fascism. I don't believe that's the sort of resource Jeff Wells would approve of being linked here, even as a referral to scientific journals, but that's just my two cents.

And I am pleased that we are can engage openly, but pleasantly, though we see things differently for now.

So am I. I will try to remain both pleasant and engaging.

[Ben D]

Again, I don't care to argue the point where the 97% figure is concerned. I'm curious what you think the correct number is, but if you don't care to hazard a guess, I'm totally OK with that. I would like to register a mild disagreement with your opinion that "Consensus is irrelevant in science." Granted, 100% agreement is virtually impossible, I'm sure there have been some scientists over the years involved in the Flat Earth Society. But if a consensus of, say, at least 95% doesn't constitute a reflection of scientific reality in your opinion, what do you think of the theory of gravity? If you are of the opinion that Newton's theory was correct, how has that scientific truth been proven?
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for that collection of links. A veritable lifetime of reading material, should one choose to peruse it. I suppose I should have been more specific with my request. I'm particularly interested in reading about peer-reviewed analysis of CO2 not causing global warming. There appear to be nine articles in your link to that point. Do you have a favorite, either from the nine at the link or elsewhere? I'm just curious which article you think, from your own reading, does the best job of scientifically explaining this hypothesis.
--------------------------------------
On a personal level, I do find the content on display on this Popular Technology website somewhat disconcerting. I've got a major problem with any website out to "debunk" 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially if they exhibit no interest in "debunking" the bullshit in the 9/11 Commission Report. But to peddle that horsecrap along with links disparaging single payer healthcare and engaging in Reefer Madness fearmongering? Reich-wing boilerplate bordering on fascism. I don't believe that's the sort of resource Jeff Wells would approve of being linked here, even as a referral to scientific journals, but that's just my two cents.

------------------------------------------------------------------
So am I. I will try to remain both pleasant and engaging.

You didn't read my links...the skeptical participants became a part of the 97% consensus because the questions were framed deceptively to accomplish it.

"The SkS scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming.

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans." - blog post by Dr Curry

You see why the Cook et al paper is deceptive and merely a political marketing ploy? It's not exactly a lie, but a deception because while 97% of skeptical climate scientists do agree that humans are a cause of warming, they definitely do not believe that they are the predominate cause of global warming. Yet the msm and even Obama have taken the position that assumes 97% of the participating scientists believe that humans are the predominate cause of global warming.

So you ask me what the correct figure and I can only say that 100% of agw scientists believe human are the predominate cause of global warming and 0% of skeptical climate scientists believe humans are the predominate cause of global warming.

Do you understand? The 97% figure is bogus if you think of it as a true representation of the beliefs of the participants....it's is clearly not. Science is not politics and Cook is a better politician than he is a ridgy didge climate scientist.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes...this one...The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimatesit is leading edge and very challenging to the IPCC agw climate models

Some excerpts from the synopsis of the consequences of the paper's findings....

"Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

Our paper is not an outlier. More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012),Nature Geoscience (2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.

This pause in warming is at odds with the 2007 IPCC report, which expected warming to increase at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the early 21st century. The warming hiatus, combined with assessments that the climate-model sensitivities are too high, raises serious questions as to whether the climate-model projections of 21st-century temperatures are fit for making public-policy decisions.

This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.
"
- Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert...I try and stick to climate science only on this thread...... I have no idea who runs Poptech or what the colour of their politics, though I do know someone with that username is quite active on climate science blogs ...I only referred you to the article that the link took you to.......the article's associated links took you climate science papers, so there are no grounds for you to be offended on that account. If you can find something fascist or evil about any of that then point it out explicitly...other than that, you merely took it upon yourself to explore stuff not relevant to what I'm about and raise it as an issue as if to try and discredit the truth in those articles relevant in the context of my response to your questions....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Namaste and cheers...

[Nordic]

Why does BenD dominate this thread, and why has he for years now, why does he rarely post anywhere else on this forum and what does he get out of doing so?

I have seen evidence from BenD himself that he is a troll, on this very thread. I'm amazed he's still tolerated here. Maybe it's because of all his sugary Zen bullshit? I dunno.

I have now lived long enough to fucking feel and see the world heating up. I have watched the burning of fossil fuels increase exponentially while we wipe out the rain forests and all the other forests at the same time.
It is abundantly clear we are in a path of self-extermination even without all this Global Warming debacle.

A mass extinction is imminent due to habitat loss and pollution and biodiversity being destroyed. Throw in the massive CO2 and methane positive feedback loop and we're just speeding it up

All this Global Warming thing has turned into, by the propagandists like Ben, is a system by which we can actually argue about whether or not we're killing ourselves. While we kill ourselves.

This is clearly an addiction issue. Our society is addicted to burning hydrocarbons, and we will suck the marrow from the bones of Mother Earth (fracking) to continue the addiction.

We will die arguing about why we are dying. We're doing it right now.

Just stop. Stop.

[coffin_dodger]

Nordic, my good fellow, to know what your opposition is thinking, you must know your opposition.

This forum is an excellent sounding board for all sides concerned.

[Ben D]

Why does BenD dominate this thread, and why has he for years now, why does he rarely post anywhere else on this forum and what does he get out of doing so?

I have seen evidence from BenD himself that he is a troll, on this very thread. I'm amazed he's still tolerated here. Maybe it's because of all his sugary Zen bullshit? I dunno.

Nordic...it seems you pride yourself at getting people banned when other members come from a a position that you disapprove of.....even though you have no real scientific knowledge of the subject at hand....

I have in the past, but no longer feel the need not to justify my presence here........so I now leave it in your good hands and those of your ilk...it all yours.

....bye and cheers to all.....please mods....close my account...

[Sounder]

It is abundantly clear we are in a path of self-extermination even without all this Global Warming debacle.

Nordic, you are one of my favorite posters, but you just jumped the shark here.

I feel sorry for you folk that do not get that GW is a money mine and a distraction from all the actual toxins being pumped into the environment.

!700 private jets at Davos not enough of a clue for you? Every large corporation being members of Agenda 21 , including Monsanto, not enough?

Past similar operations that were and are money mines and distractors from more substantial issues, such as the war on, you name the boogy man, not enough for you?

How about the constant selling of the meme on media. Those people surely have our best interests in mind, right?

You all, try to lay some social conformity bullshit on me and I will be happy to trade words with you in my feeble attempt to blow your stupid fucking conformity out of the water.


The skeptics are being driven away, producing an artificial consensus. Delta Dawn was treated rudely and with conformity signals from the start. The issue is intended to be polarizing so that we all live in non communicating bubbles.

Why do we have to be the kind of fools that fall for this divisive social engineering? Locked into stupid reactive mind trivia. Stupid just stupid.

The elite sure are getting their moneys worth on this one.