Climate Science Is Not Settled

[fskimospy]

It's all pretty simple. If a paper is discussing what methods could best be used to reduce human carbon emissions it's reasonable to infer that they believe that humans have an effect on global temperatures.

By your argument this paper would actually be part of the group where certainty about AGW was not stated, thus counting against the consensus.

When your logic leads you to such a manifestly absurd conclusion it is time to reexamine what led you there.

 

[dphantom]

The Judith Curry study you linked to fundamentally supports MMGW, only differing with the mainstream in the magnitude of climate sensitivty. In fact it's not much different than the range provided by IPCC 4.

I have said that over and over.

So if you agree with that article why do you continue to have this belief that there are "unknown" effects that would dramatically alter the science behind global warming or its effects or how to combat it.

I dont believe I ever said specifically there are unknown factors though I will now say there may be. Probably not of any significance by now but should be kept in mind.

What I have consistently said is we are unsure of the effects of man vs natural climate change on GW. And each new study that comes out as we gather more and more data, better data, consistently revises downward the effect man produced CO2 has on GW.

Nowhere, and I repeat this for the 10 millionth time have I ever denied man causes some warming. I just have yet to see definitive data that says man is the cause of 90% 75% 50% 5% of all warming that has taken place since roughly 1850.

And looking at CO2 increases since 1850 while very important is not the entire story and may not be the most significant. It may come to pass it is, but new research continues and the trend now is toward a lessening of man caused CO2 and temperature and a shift to natural cycles.

I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. As far as I can see we agree on man caused warming, just how much is the gap.

 

[Greenman]

I have said that over and over.



I dont believe I ever said specifically there are unknown factors though I will now say there may be. Probably not of any significance by now but should be kept in mind.

What I have consistently said is we are unsure of the effects of man vs natural climate change on GW. And each new study that comes out as we gather more and more data, better data, consistently revises downward the effect man produced CO2 has on GW.

Nowhere, and I repeat this for the 10 millionth time have I ever denied man causes some warming. I just have yet to see definitive data that says man is the cause of 90% 75% 50% 5% of all warming that has taken place since roughly 1850.

And looking at CO2 increases since 1850 while very important is not the entire story and may not be the most significant. It may come to pass it is, but new research continues and the trend now is toward a lessening of man caused CO2 and temperature and a shift to natural cycles.

I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. As far as I can see we agree on man caused warming, just how much is the gap.

It's because people become invested in an idea, and feel that any that don't share that idea or belief wrong, some think they have be forced into believing.
It's been going since our first ancestors fell out of the trees, I don't see the system changing for many decades, if ever.

 

[DrPizza]

And looking at CO2 increases since 1850 while very important is not the entire story and may not be the most significant. It may come to pass it is, but new research continues and the trend now is toward a lessening of man caused CO2 and temperature and a shift to natural cycles.

I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. As far as I can see we agree on man caused warming, just how much is the gap.

Huh? I haven't seen any research that shows that the source of the excess CO2 is something other than from man. You're aware that the amount of CO2 pumped into the environment via the burning of fossil fuels can be calculated, right? It's not as if from 1920 to 1950, burning coal created fairies instead of CO2.

 

[lopri]

Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire

Admittedly a one-sided story but it's well worth reading with your own judgment substituting whatever is hyperbole.

 

[chucky2]

No, none of that matters, what other countries do should have no bearing on our action. Thanks for continuing with you adolescent logic though

I guess you have confused me. Aren't you on the side that Believes man is a significant cause of Global Warmi, er, Global Coolin, er, Climate Change?

 

[Cozarkian]

It's all pretty simple. If a paper is discussing what methods could best be used to reduce human carbon emissions it's reasonable to infer that they believe that humans have an effect on global temperatures.

By your argument this paper would actually be part of the group where certainty about AGW was not stated, thus counting against the consensus.

When your logic leads you to such a manifestly absurd conclusion it is time to reexamine what led you there.

That paper should not be included in the consensus. The purported consensus is that humans are a dominant cause of global warming.

The author of the paper you described could think we should reduce human CO2 emissions without believing those are the dominant cause of global warming. For example, the author may believe humans are a less-than dominant cause of global warming but still wants to reduce our contribution. Or the author may believe there are negative climate effects of increased human CO2 that do not relate to global warming at all. Finally, the author might be uncertain as to the extent of human contribution and is examining the solution out of either an abundance of caution or so that solutions can be implemented more quickly after the precise amount of the human contribution is determined.

Thus, by rules of logic, there is insufficient information to conclude the paper you described belongs in the consensus.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess you have confused me. Aren't you on the side that Believes man is a significant cause of Global Warmi, er, Global Coolin, er, Climate Change?

I couldn't care less about who caused it, a clean environment is a good think, whether it's clean air, clean water, and clean land. Until the US cleans up it's mess we have no room to ask other countries to do the same.

 

[Meghan54]

Huh? I haven't seen any research that shows that the source of the excess CO2 is something other than from man. You're aware that the amount of CO2 pumped into the environment via the burning of fossil fuels can be calculated, right? It's not as if from 1920 to 1950, burning coal created fairies instead of CO2.

Sorry, but that just made me laugh. Fairies, eh? Thought the fossil fuel CO2 was actually unicorns back then, not fairies. Guess my education is lacking.


And about the Curry report. When I saw Curry had been the featured speaker at the National Press Club's event on global warming on Sept. 16th...a week ago....my interest was piqued, well, until I found out the event was sponsored by the Marshall Institute, a conservative thinktank that also spread misinformation in the past about the dangers of smoking, ozone depletion, acid rain, and DDT, for instance.

Immediately paid much less attention to Curry at that point.

 

[fskimospy]

That paper should not be included in the consensus. The purported consensus is that humans are a dominant cause of global warming.

The author of the paper you described could think we should reduce human CO2 emissions without believing those are the dominant cause of global warming. For example, the author may believe humans are a less-than dominant cause of global warming but still wants to reduce our contribution. Or the author may believe there are negative climate effects of increased human CO2 that do not relate to global warming at all. Finally, the author might be uncertain as to the extent of human contribution and is examining the solution out of either an abundance of caution or so that solutions can be implemented more quickly after the precise amount of the human contribution is determined.

Thus, by rules of logic, there is insufficient information to conclude the paper you described belongs in the consensus.

You appear to be confused about what an inference is. The question here is not if there is any other possible explanation as to why someone might have written a paper, it is what is the most likely explanation given the evidence.

To borrow an idea I heard somewhere, in a situation where you have incomplete evidence you have to choose the classification scheme that is the most useful. Instead of using a graduated scale that takes into account varying types of endorsement as was used in the paper under discussion, you've decided that the best way to classify a paper dedicated to mitigating human carbon emissions is to say that they do not express certainty in the AGW consensus.

I'm not sure how much research you are involved in, but that logic would not pass peer review. The logic in this paper did, by the way.

Additionally, you appear to have forgotten the fact that authors rated their own papers and placed them in the consensus. In order for your logic to make sense this means that the authors of those papers would have been marking their papers as implicitly accepting this consensus despite the fact that apparently they had really just been writing a climate science paper because they were waiting for football season to start. This is illogical.

 

[Paul98]

Here is a brand new peer reviewed paper that addresses climate sensitivity to CO2. It is to be published in Climate Dynamics this month. Below is a link to the paper.

http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com..._clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

Briefly, the paper uses data from the IPCC 5th AWG to refine estimates of climate sensitivity and shows that climate is less sensitive to CO2 than has been estimated.

Certainly, climate is affected by CO2, but it appears to not be as much as expected.

Did you actually read the paper, do you understand what was done what this approach assumes how it works, and how many of the values were picked? Do you understand what it actually means in respect to global temperature increase based on man made global warming, and what it means in context of the rest of the work that's been done on the subject?

There is going to be discussion about some of the selections.

 

[dphantom]

Did you actually read the paper, do you understand what was done what this approach assumes how it works, and how many of the values were picked? Do you understand what it actually means in respect to global temperature increase based on man made global warming, and what it means in context of the rest of the work that's been done on the subject?

There is going to be discussion about some of the selections.

Is this your normal approach to a discussion is a condescending attitude? Of course I read it, every word. I also assume when you respond you read it as well. Except I do not insult one's intelligence.

 

[Paul98]

Is this your normal approach to a discussion is a condescending attitude? Of course I read it, every word. I also assume when you respond you read it as well. Except I do not insult one's intelligence.

I didn't think your posts reflected it, and since there is a lot to understand and references to look at it wouldn't be surprising that you wouldn't.

 

[IGBT]

I have said that over and over.



I dont believe I ever said specifically there are unknown factors though I will now say there may be. Probably not of any significance by now but should be kept in mind.

What I have consistently said is we are unsure of the effects of man vs natural climate change on GW. And each new study that comes out as we gather more and more data, better data, consistently revises downward the effect man produced CO2 has on GW.

Nowhere, and I repeat this for the 10 millionth time have I ever denied man causes some warming. I just have yet to see definitive data that says man is the cause of 90% 75% 50% 5% of all warming that has taken place since roughly 1850.

And looking at CO2 increases since 1850 while very important is not the entire story and may not be the most significant. It may come to pass it is, but new research continues and the trend now is toward a lessening of man caused CO2 and temperature and a shift to natural cycles.

I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. As far as I can see we agree on man caused warming, just how much is the gap.

the answer is simple. The fundamental operating principal of today's eco-KOOK environmental movement is "man is the cause". In order to come to that conclusion the eco-KOOS have to dismiss all intellectual application that suggests it's a hoax and based on faulty computer modeling. Garbage in garbage out. The bigger picture..the eco-KOOK hoax and all it's alarmist propaganda is a element of the religion of secular fundamentalism. Eco-Theism.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Great, now the liberals have gotten to the farmers,...
http://globegazette.com/news/local/...512b-8434-41dea82a2cf7.html?mobile_touch=true

 

[dphantom]

I didn't think your posts reflected it, and since there is a lot to understand and references to look at it wouldn't be surprising that you wouldn't.

lol and the insults continue. When you are ready to have an intelligent discourse, let me know. Much of your position is valid and has solid research to support it. I just wish you could keep on open mind as new research comes out to challenge your belief that man is the overwhelming cause of GW.

 

[Paul98]

lol and the insults continue. When you are ready to have an intelligent discourse, let me know. Much of your position is valid and has solid research to support it. I just wish you could keep on open mind as new research comes out to challenge your belief that man is the overwhelming cause of GW.

About how much warming since 1950 do you attribute to man vs natural causes?

Edit: Just a general guess about how much you think so I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[Attic]

I have said that over and over.



I dont believe I ever said specifically there are unknown factors though I will now say there may be. Probably not of any significance by now but should be kept in mind.

What I have consistently said is we are unsure of the effects of man vs natural climate change on GW. And each new study that comes out as we gather more and more data, better data, consistently revises downward the effect man produced CO2 has on GW.

Nowhere, and I repeat this for the 10 millionth time have I ever denied man causes some warming. I just have yet to see definitive data that says man is the cause of 90% 75% 50% 5% of all warming that has taken place since roughly 1850.

And looking at CO2 increases since 1850 while very important is not the entire story and may not be the most significant. It may come to pass it is, but new research continues and the trend now is toward a lessening of man caused CO2 and temperature and a shift to natural cycles.

I do not understand why that is so difficult to grasp. As far as I can see we agree on man caused warming, just how much is the gap.

Rarely does man believe so fully in that which he knows the least about. In this case it becomes important to not find the real answer to the question, because the "answer" is already here (Man did it all, or must of it, well what does it matter man is the problem dummy.....)

More information, the real truth then becomes the enemy, it should be clear why folks find it difficult to grasp that climate change might not be what they think.

That's what the real truth of the matter is up against, man's pride.

 

[Jaskalas]

About how much warming since 1950 do you attribute to man vs natural causes?

Edit: Just a general guess about how much you think so I can understand where you are coming from.

For my answer, I'd hazard to guess 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius. There is a subtle increase during the "pause" years, depending on the data you look at.

 

[dphantom]

For my answer, I'd hazard to guess 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius. There is a subtle increase during the "pause" years, depending on the data you look at.

since 1850 of the roughly 1.5C rise I would estimate based on everything I have read perhaps .3 to .4 C is man induced. Since 1950 maybe another .25 to .4 though I think that is really high but have no real data to back up that assumption yet.

edit: and the .3-.4 up to 1950 is almost certainly high as that is a recovery from the LIA so probably most is related to that. But for now, I will estimate on the high side.

 

[Paul98]

since 1850 of the roughly 1.5C rise I would estimate based on everything I have read perhaps .3 to .4 C is man induced. Since 1950 maybe another .25 to .4 though I think that is really high but have no real data to back up that assumption yet.

edit: and the .3-.4 up to 1950 is almost certainly high as that is a recovery from the LIA so probably most is related to that. But for now, I will estimate on the high side.

alright so you are thinking .25-.4 of the ~.8 increase is due to man made global warming? Seems given the paper you were just linking which did it's best to get low warming effect, even with that .4c would be to low.

 

[dphantom]

alright so you are thinking .25-.4 of the ~.8 increase is due to man made global warming? Seems given the paper you were just linking which did it's best to get low warming effect, even with that .4c would be to low.

it very well could be. but the trend is down so I will go with that as we gather better temperature data especially from the new weather stations that have been put in.

too clarify, which re-reading my post, probably was not very clear is that I think man's total influence of the ~ 1.5C rise since 1850 is about .8C. So a bit more than half though I think half the total warming since 1850 is still high.

 

[Paul98]

it very well could be. but the trend is down so I will go with that as we gather better temperature data especially from the new weather stations that have been put in.

What trend is down?

 

[dphantom]

What trend is down?

CO2 and its effect on temperature. IPCC shows that.

 

[Paul98]

CO2 and its effect on temperature. IPCC shows that.

How's that?