Why is climate science political?

[Liability]

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!

I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too

I have peer reviewed both the Oddball post and the peer review by brother CrusaderFrank and it is hereby certified that both are accurate and this is stated with a statistical significance level of confidence over 99%.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!

I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too

I have peer reviewed both the Oddball post and the peer review by brother CrusaderFrank and it is hereby certified that both are accurate and this is stated with a statistical significance level of confidence over 99%.

We have consensus!

science = settled!

Government funding to follow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Your posting is definitely at its best when you don't even go through the motions of discussing the topic.

I thought your wife was an expert?

 

[Liability]

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

But there is no rigorous scientific proof of the A part of AGW.

What they endorse is a political statement and a statement of BELIEF and supposition. They are entitled to have those silly opinions. But as scientists, they are obliged to prove it. They haven't. Science is not defined by "consensus."

Fucking bullshit, fellow. The proof was presented by Tyndall in 1859.

Bullshit indeed. There was never any "proof." Still isn't. And you'd know that if you could ever be honest.

 

[code1211]

Oddball -

Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do.

There's an overview here, or choose anyone of a hundred other sites:
RealClimate: How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

But really - this is such a red herring, isn't it?

At what point will you list the scientific bodies who do not believe human acitivity plays a part in climate change?

You are making a leap of faith here.

The question is not whether or not CO2 is increasing. The question is how much of the increase in the temperature of the planet, which has been decreasing for the record, is directly and irrefutably attributable to the activities of man?

That is the question that needs to be answered and before that answer can be made, the proof of the actual connection between the rise of CO2 and the rise and fall of temperature needs to be demonstrated.

Proving that CO2 both increases and decreases temperature should be an interesting comment from you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!

I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too

Don Rickles gives this peer review his 'hockey puck seal of what the hell's your problem'.

And who wouldn't know more about warmth than Mr. Warmth?

 

[Oddball]

I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too

I have peer reviewed both the Oddball post and the peer review by brother CrusaderFrank and it is hereby certified that both are accurate and this is stated with a statistical significance level of confidence over 99%.

We have consensus!

science = settled!

Government funding to follow

 

[Big Fitz]

Didn't Nazis say that the science was settled on Jews and blacks being an inferior race?

 

[code1211]

Oddball -

I think it is more of a red herring in this case, but the answer couldn't be much easier to find.

This site says 5.53% of CO2 released is from human acivitity....that's fairly close to what I've seen on other sites. Feel free to use another figure if you prefer.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Asking for thr 4th time now - which scientific bodies do not believe human acitivity plays a role in climate change?

So we know that 5% of the air is GHG's. Of the GHG's, about 3 to 4% is CO2. Of that sliver, 5.53% is Anthropogenic.

So your thesis is that 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere is the prime driver of climate change and that if we change our ways, we will return to the ideal climate of 150 years ago.

We really need circus music for this kind of logic.

 

[code1211]

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


Come on gentlemen - if your case has so much science behind it - let's see the list of scientific organisations who agree with you.

You ask for science to refute opinion?

Interesting gambit.

 

[code1211]

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world.

It is not a difficult choice.

The theory you assert demands that we accept that the warming from the dawn of the Industrial revolution is caused by the increase of CO2 in the air.

What caused the warming between 1600 and 1800 which by some proxies was more pronounced?

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change

Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?

How much we spend - and what on - is a decision to be made by whatever politician you chose to vote for - and is ideally made on the basis of the best available scientific information.

Given most conservative parties agree with the positions listed here by those 50 scientific bodies - that should be possible.

How many governments of Europe have enacted the Kyoto Accords?

 

[code1211]

Liability -

Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy.

However, around the world most conservative parties are stating that climate change is NOT a left wing conspiracy, and is, in fact, scientific fact.

How do you explain this?

How many governments around the world have enacted the Kyoto Accords?

 

[code1211]

Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it.

And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes.

When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.

I started out as a proponent of AGW and was converted because there is not the evidence to support that it is happening.

You have failed to present proof that would convince otherwise.

This is not agenda driven but is, rather, an unbiased view of the real world.

You should try to adopt that view.

 

[code1211]

AGW Observer

Signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century

Observed 21st century temperatures further constrain likely rates of future warming – Stott & Jones (2012)

Abstract: “We carry out a detection and attribution analysis of observed near-surface temperatures to 2010 and demonstrate that the signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century. As a result, we show that global warming is set to continue, with the second decade of the 21st century predicted to be very likely warmer than the first. Estimates of future warming rates consistent with observations of past climate change are now better constrained than they were a decade ago. The highest rates of warming previously consistent with past warming now appear to be unlikely.”

Citation: Peter A. Stott, Gareth S. Jones, Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.383.

And the presentation of that accurate thirty year prediction of climate is to be posted when?

 

[code1211]

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

But there is no rigorous scientific proof of the A part of AGW.

What they endorse is a political statement and a statement of BELIEF and supposition. They are entitled to have those silly opinions. But as scientists, they are obliged to prove it. They haven't. Science is not defined by "consensus."

Fucking bullshit, fellow. The proof was presented by Tyndall in 1859.

And the prediction presented by Hansen was wrong.

Why do you continue to present the proof of the mathematical precision when what is needed is the evidence of what is happening in the REAL world.

Show me where the proof is that CO2 is the prime driver of Climate and I'll see it.

I can't see something that isn't there.

 

[Liability]

I have peer reviewed both the Oddball post and the peer review by brother CrusaderFrank and it is hereby certified that both are accurate and this is stated with a statistical significance level of confidence over 99%.

We have consensus!

science = settled!

Government funding to follow

Yes. Take more from the evil Satan. THAT will work.

I endorse the brilliance of social engineering of the entire world by means of fake science.

 

[code1211]

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.

I doubt that tripe was worthy of any response at all in that it suggested that the conditions of the permian were analogous to the present. During the time of the permian extinction, vulcanism was at a state so much greater than the present that to make a comparison is just stupid.

Regarding the permian, we know the temperature was already high when it started and that it shot up like a rocket.

Why did it come back down?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.

I doubt that tripe was worthy of any response at all in that it suggested that the conditions of the permian were analogous to the present. During the time of the permian extinction, vulcanism was at a state so much greater than the present that to make a comparison is just stupid.

Regarding the permian, we know the temperature was already high when it started and that it shot up like a rocket.

Why did it come back down?

For exactly the same reason that it will come back down, very slowly, measured in tens of milenia, when we stop putting GHGs in the atmosphere. Chemical weathering of rocks, and removal of CO2 in the ocean by the single celled animals and plants. However, in the Triassic, after the P-T extinction event, it took millions of years for the ocean life to come back to where it had been.

There are some chapters in this book that describe what we know concerning the events before, during, and after the P-T extinction event.

Part II: Now

 

[Old Rocks]

Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.

And we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact, the predictions of the people like Dr. Hansen, have been far to conservative. Not nearly alarmist enough. The Arctic Ice is now where the predictions said it would be in 2050. The Storms of our Grandchildren are already occuring. Given that at the very end of a double La Nina, the global temperature for the month of April was higher than any temperature prior to 1998, and the bottom of the average for this downturn is higher than the high point for any high point in the averages prior to 1998, one can only wonder what the high point will be in the next El Nino.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.