Global warming is speeding up.

You fools (and I REALLY do mean "fools") love to keep bringing up that first survey. It wasn't 74 by the way. And you do this despite the FACT that you have been repeatedly told that multiple other polls, surveys and studies have been conducted since that have involved thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies. It looks like this:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


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


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

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

They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

Are causing? Wow, sounds very precise.
 
I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.
Do the scientists know what percentage of current climate change in natural and how much is from man's activities?
 
View attachment 524865

Did your post #92, or any of your later posts, answer my questions?

Because "faster than the last 140 years" doesn't justify $76 trillion, as far as I can tell.

Sorry for the delay. I don't have to be I terpreted by you and don't demand it again. Fuck you.

Where's your 76 trillion figure come from?
I'll bet you think CC is bullshit. 76 trillion won't be much to save the earth.
 
I saw some climate scientist saying this on the news last night. That the earth is not just getting warmer, but the rate at which it is getting warmer is accelerating. Though this isn't news to me. The only question is how bad will things get before people start doing something about it. I am reminded of a lyric by Janis Joplin. "Freedom's (survival) just another word for nothing left to lose." I wouldn't expect our corporate government to do much. I also saw on the news last night that Biden signed some mandate or something saying that by the year 2050, all cars are going to have to be electric. But the way things are looking, it is doubtful there will be any people around to drive them. And they're supposed to have all electric cars in the U.S. But what about the rest of the increasingly overpopulating and "migrating" world.
Spend a winter in Nome, Alaska. That will cool off all yer worries.

Oh and about electric cars, it takes twice as many irreplacable fossil fuels to create electric power for cars and machinery than using fossil fuel directly from gas distributing station. Those who are pushing electric cars know not how that works and are twice as likely to be barging into territory like drunken sailors whose drug has removed them from clear thinking and the mathematics of electrical engineers with a PE distinction behind their full names.
 
I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.
I think you should stop and consider for just a second how many tens of thousands of professional scientists would have to all be involved in the same closely coordinated conspiracy to pull off such a thing. And those tens of thousands of people would have to maintain perfect security since this must have been going on for decades and NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIST has ever even hinted, much less confessed to the existence of such a scheme.

To put it bluntly, your suggestion here fails the sanity test. Badly.


Parrot one - great
Parrot many - awesome

What does that prove?


You have a beak and a birdbrain.


Science is not about parroting.

Science is about truth and data, and your side has NONE....


Bawk on, MORON....
 
Sorry for the delay. I don't have to be I terpreted by you and don't demand it again. Fuck you.

Where's your 76 trillion figure come from?
I'll bet you think CC is bullshit. 76 trillion won't be much to save the earth.

I don't have to be I terpreted by you and don't demand it again.

I'm sorry, is it your emotional time of the month again?
 
That 97% consensus counts "no opinion" as positives ... the cardiologist that doesn't mention climate change in his published paper is counted as in full 100% agreement in all things AGW ... it's the 3% of papers dealing with natural causes of global warming that are discounted ... as reprehensible as that is ...

A not-so-clever way to lie with statistics ...
 
I don't have to be I terpreted by you and don't demand it again.

I'm sorry, is it your emotional time of the month again?

I didn't expect you to reply because like all the loonies, you have nothing.
I remind you, it was you who first demanded answers. Oh the irony.
 
Parrot one - great
Parrot many - awesome

What does that prove?


You have a beak and a birdbrain.


Science is not about parroting.

Science is about truth and data, and your side has NONE....


Bawk on, MORON....
Your position here still fails the sanity test.
 
I didn't expect you to reply because like all the loonies, you have nothing.
I remind you, it was you who first demanded answers. Oh the irony.

We've brought the equation ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI) where ∆T is the change in temperature, k is climate sensitivity, CF is final CO2 concentration and CI is initial CO2 concentration ... and this equation is used by the IPCC in their reports ... in AR5 1WG Fig 12-5, we have the consolidated climate model results under the RPC4.5 scenario which follows this log curve almost exactly ... meaning global warming is slowing down, the opposite of the OP's claims ...

The counter-argument here is that the IPCC is a political organization and their reports are strictly political rhetoric ... using sciency words and terminology to better deceive the general public ... if the rhetoric is better with a few violations of natural law, not many people would notice ... and we get folks like you screaming hockey sticks and hypercanes ...

Our question is simple ... what is the numeric relationship between CO2 concentration and radiative forcing as measured from space ... we know that at 425 ppm, we have 1.8 W/m^2 forcing ... what does the concentration have to be in order to achieve the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario mentioned above? ... how much to get to 8.5 W/m^2 level that all the headlines and click-bait are about? ...
 
We've brought the equation ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI) where ∆T is the change in temperature, k is climate sensitivity, CF is final CO2 concentration and CI is initial CO2 concentration ... and this equation is used by the IPCC in their reports ... in AR5 1WG Fig 12-5, we have the consolidated climate model results under the RPC4.5 scenario which follows this log curve almost exactly ... meaning global warming is slowing down, the opposite of the OP's claims ...

The counter-argument here is that the IPCC is a political organization and their reports are strictly political rhetoric ... using sciency words and terminology to better deceive the general public ... if the rhetoric is better with a few violations of natural law, not many people would notice ... and we get folks like you screaming hockey sticks and hypercanes ...

Our question is simple ... what is the numeric relationship between CO2 concentration and radiative forcing as measured from space ... we know that at 425 ppm, we have 1.8 W/m^2 forcing ... what does the concentration have to be in order to achieve the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario mentioned above? ... how much to get to 8.5 W/m^2 level that all the headlines and click-bait are about? ...

So your another conspiracy nut with a dictionary of words to justify it.

Got it.
 
We've brought the equation ∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CI) where ∆T is the change in temperature, k is climate sensitivity, CF is final CO2 concentration and CI is initial CO2 concentration ... and this equation is used by the IPCC in their reports ... in AR5 1WG Fig 12-5, we have the consolidated climate model results under the RPC4.5 scenario which follows this log curve almost exactly ... meaning global warming is slowing down, the opposite of the OP's claims ...

The counter-argument here is that the IPCC is a political organization and their reports are strictly political rhetoric ... using sciency words and terminology to better deceive the general public ... if the rhetoric is better with a few violations of natural law, not many people would notice ... and we get folks like you screaming hockey sticks and hypercanes ...

Our question is simple ... what is the numeric relationship between CO2 concentration and radiative forcing as measured from space ... we know that at 425 ppm, we have 1.8 W/m^2 forcing ... what does the concentration have to be in order to achieve the 4.5 W/m^2 scenario mentioned above? ... how much to get to 8.5 W/m^2 level that all the headlines and click-bait are about? ...
Global warming is not slowing down due to the exponential rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Temperature is still rising at an accelerating rate. Perhaps Reiny will tell you not to trust your eyes:

1630291956343.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top