Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Wrecker45 3,378]

thanks for that...

did you miss this part of article ?

Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

and ....did you miss this part of the article ?

Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

hmmm unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up ? Interesting language - I scoured the article for the bit about "desperate hypothesis" but I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

You might need to re-read the post of mine you are replying to. I said NASA disputed that the heat was going into the ocean and have since provided a link. The desperate hypothesis bit was my observation.

[nutbean 8,838]

You might need to re-read the post of mine you are replying to. I said NASA disputed that the heat was going into the ocean and have since provided a link. The desperate hypothesis bit was my observation.

Actually - only the deep ocean is not heating - the top part half of the ocean is - but as pointed out in the article - it does not account for the cumulative lack of heating in the atmosphere.

I was being factitious - I haven't resorted to casting colourful observations on scientific opinion as I am far from qualified to do so - To my mind there is scientific consensus on where there is heading. Have all the predictions been correct - absolutely not. Has there been some alarmists entering the debate - absolutely. Has there been scientific reasons for why certain modeling has not been as accurate as it should be. Absolutely.

My frustration with this debate is the argument - in the casting of doubt on the entire science because certain parts of the models have not played out exactly as expected. New papers are being published regularly that shift predictions that were made and forward new views that will alter previous models - NASA in the article you linked pointed out specifically says that this paper does not throw suspicion on climate change itself ( which you chose to ignore) - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

[daisycutter 29,616]

...... - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

just to be a little bit picky (or anal) but i find this "97% of the scientific community" to be a bit of a hoary old chestnut

i don't understand what it means. it is too vague, even unscientific

97% of scientists don't even work in the field of climate science

many scientists who do work in this field only work in very specialised sub-sections

how many years working as a scientist gets you included in this group

what is the defintion of a "scientist" anyway

and what exactly are they all agreeing on (apart from general statements like "climate change is real")

yep a bit anal, but that's just me. i hate generalised sweeping statements that just get thrown around in any context

[P-man 13,366]

just to be a little bit picky (or anal) but i find this "97% of the scientific community" to be a bit of a hoary old chestnut

i don't understand what it means. it is too vague, even unscientific

97% of scientists don't even work in the field of climate science

many scientists who do work in this field only work in very specialised sub-sections

how many years working as a scientist gets you included in this group

what is the defintion of a "scientist" anyway

and what exactly are they all agreeing on (apart from general statements like "climate change is real")

yep a bit anal, but that's just me. i hate generalised sweeping statements that just get thrown around in any context

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Edited February 3, 2015 by P-man

[daisycutter 29,616]

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

[dee-luded 2,959]

Thanks daisycutter. Hiatus from 1998 globally confirmed.

well that must be it then!!!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Actually - only the deep ocean is not heating - the top part half of the ocean is - but as pointed out in the article - it does not account for the cumulative lack of heating in the atmosphere.

I was being factitious - I haven't resorted to casting colourful observations on scientific opinion as I am far from qualified to do so - To my mind there is scientific consensus on where there is heading. Have all the predictions been correct - absolutely not. Has there been some alarmists entering the debate - absolutely. Has there been scientific reasons for why certain modeling has not been as accurate as it should be. Absolutely.

My frustration with this debate is the argument - in the casting of doubt on the entire science because certain parts of the models have not played out exactly as expected. New papers are being published regularly that shift predictions that were made and forward new views that will alter previous models - NASA in the article you linked pointed out specifically says that this paper does not throw suspicion on climate change itself ( which you chose to ignore) - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less.

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

thats right nutB, its not exactly like we've all been thru one of these before, to have the experience to know the playbook exactly.

[nutbean 8,838]

thats right nutB, its not exactly like we've all been thru one of these before, to have the experience to know the playbook exactly.

I think that this is sometimes lost in the whole debate.

The goal posts will move, there will be corrections to modelling and learnings as we go forward. As yet, I have not read of any corrections or shifts that has forced climate scientists to suggest that the problem of climate change is a myth.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

You do understand the difference between 97% of all scientists and 97% of all papers, right?

You do understand the difference between not expressing an opinion and not having an opinion?

Whether an opinion on a particular cause (like AGW) is an outcome of a study would need to take into account the parameters of that study. The paper by Cook et al isn't that fine grained (one that was would take forever and probably wouldn't add much understanding anyway). I can't see the Guardian article. Maybe it says something else but I doubt it would allow the kind of equation you're making between scientists and scientific papers.

Edit typo

Edited February 3, 2015 by Dr John Dee

[nutbean 8,838]

so, as i suspected it was not "97% of all scientists"......thanks

from the 2 surveys of peer reviewed literature 32% and 64% endorsed AGW

i should have qualified - 97% of "climate scientists" ( still pretty generic)

[daisycutter 29,616]

You do understand the difference between 97% of all scientists and 97% of all papers, right?

You do understand the difference between not expressing an opinion and not having an opinion?

Whether an opinion on a particular cause (like AGW) is an outcome of a study would need to take into account the parameters of that study. The paper by Cook et al isn't that fine grained (one that was would take forever and probably wouldn't add much understanding anyway). I can't see the Guardian article. Maybe it says something else but I doubt it would allow the kind of equation you're making between scientists and scientific papers.

Edit typo

yes, i do understand all that dr john

and i hope that you understand that the constant quoting by people of "97% of all scientists" is misleading and a corruption of the original findings

that's all i am pointing out. there is enough sloppy and exaggerated reporting on both sides

[daisycutter 29,616]

i should have qualified - 97% of "climate scientists" ( still pretty generic)

getting closer but no cigar

[nutbean 8,838]

getting closer but no cigar

You disagree with NASA's statement ( from their website) ?

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

yes, i do understand all that dr john

and i hope that you understand that the constant quoting by people of "97% of all scientists" is misleading and a corruption of the original findings

that's all i am pointing out. there is enough sloppy and exaggerated reporting on both sides

except the 97% figure has been around a lot longer than this paper's findings. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, but that's not down to misrepresenting Cook et al.

[daisycutter 29,616]

except the 97% figure has been around a lot longer than this paper's findings. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, but that's not down to misrepresenting Cook et al.

the term 'all scientists" being unqualified and undefined is the main issue for me. it is hyperbolic and unnecessary

btw i'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of scientists who work in the climate related sciences endorse AGW (for whatever reasons)

(I still think the 97% bit includes a bit of window dressing, but this was a secondary issue)

Edited February 4, 2015 by daisycutter

[P-man 13,366]

Geeze you're reaching a bit DC. I think it's safely assumed that it's 97% of climate scientists. No-one is asking neurochemists whether they think climate change is happening.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Geeze you're reaching a bit DC. I think it's safely assumed that it's 97% of climate scientists. No-one is asking neurochemists whether they think climate change is happening.

when i started on post #103 my opening statement was "just to be a little bit picky (or anal) " so, yes you could say i'm reaching

you and i might know(or presume) that neurochemists (whatever they are) and labrats are not included but the great unwashed probably don't make that distinction

"all scientists" sounds much more powerful and convincing than "all climate scientists" or "all published climate scientists" ..... marketing 101

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

the term 'all scientists" being unqualified and undefined is the main issue for me. it is hyperbolic and unnecessary

btw i'm quite satisfied that the vast majority of scientists who work in the climate related sciences endorse AGW (for whatever reasons)

(I still think the 97% bit includes a bit of window dressing, but this was a secondary issue)

No argument from me on any of this, DC. In the end the numbers of who says what are far less important than the processes of scientific verification/falsification involved (and how these are carried out and evaluated by scientists, not the rabble that thinks it knows what it's talking about because it read some web page or other).

[nutbean 8,838]

when i started on post #103 my opening statement was "just to be a little bit picky (or anal) " so, yes you could say i'm reaching

you and i might know(or presume) that neurochemists (whatever they are) and labrats are not included but the great unwashed probably don't make that distinction

"all scientists" sounds much more powerful and convincing than "all climate scientists" or "all published climate scientists" ..... marketing 101

the vast majority of those in the know ?

[daisycutter 29,616]

the vast majority of those in the know ?

another loaded question, nut?

i'll let wrecker respond

[you know, sometimes you can be too close to something to see the forest, and too incentivised to support a conclusion]

[lol - just stirring the pot, nut]

[nutbean 8,838]

another loaded question, nut?

i'll let wrecker respond

[you know, sometimes you can be too close to something to see the forest, and too incentivised to support a conclusion]

[lol - just stirring the pot, nut]

I prefer to think of my philosophy's as confused but content.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Several surveys have been conducted of peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming/climate change, the most notable being a survey of just under 12,000 papers published between 01-11. This resulted in a consensus of 97.1% supporting the theory of human induced climate change. This figure is consistent with other similar surveys.

Links below.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

P-man I can't open the first link and I am really not buying into the 2nd.

I feel like I am arguing belligerently against AGW because I keep disagreeing with everything but I am open minded on the topic and was once a massive believer. I just changed my mind when the evidence shifted.

The 97% of scientists study has been widely debunked. You only need to google it to see the number of papers on it. I post a link only because you did as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print

I am happy to argue any of the points but really don't want to get into an argument over who can post the most supporting links.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

I respect that and agree arguing with someone who has a closed mind is not worth your time (or mine).

I will say though that if the evidence changes I will change my mind. Right now whilst the real world data flies in the face of the IPCC predictions I am happy to be in the "Denier" camp.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

well that must be it then!!!

dee-luded I don't know why I am even replying to you but for the record a picture of George Bush in no way disproves the hiatus, acknowledged by the IPCC and visible in the graphs posted in this thread.

[nutbean 8,838]

dee-luded I don't know why I am even replying to you but for the record a picture of George Bush in no way disproves the hiatus, acknowledged by the IPCC and visible in the graphs posted in this thread.

George Dubbya is a colossal gumby though... makes me think more warmly of our Tony ( but that's for another thread !)