Climate Change

Open Forum
1

-----Just want to learn languages, not engage in politics. Since I do believe in keeping what I wrote up, I will. -------

Climate Change, or what they aren’t telling.

"The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s
student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”

"Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded. "

More Examples: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

(I checked the validity of that site and it seems to have a right leaning bias, so educate me if it is wrong.)

“The greenhouse gas theory has unanswered questions. It comes with some baggage, namely a NECESSARY condition that there be a warmer region (a “hot spot”) about 10k above the tropics. Despite millions of radiosondes, that hot spot has never been found. Also, in any event, even if found (rather unlikely at this point) that is not SUFFICIENT. There must still be EVIDENCE.”

Please note that the temperature stopped increasing in 1998 according to satellite data (RSS and UAH).

The computer models all ASSUME that water vapor is the actual culprit, causing more warming than brought on by co2 increase. But nobody really knows whether water vapor feedback is positive or negative.

We do know that the difference between temperatures project by computer models and the actual subsequent measured temperatures continues to WIDEN.

We also know that the capability of co2 to influence warming dissipates quickly as its level increases."

Before I post this to hopefully get responses and learn more, either way, i want to point something out.

And why is it that leaders or famous people that advocate for global warming use so much?
Al Gore promoted carbon credits that his company would have administered. He stood to make billions on this scam. Of course he is upset. Famous people make millions off this and use pollute more than the regular person with MULTIPLE HOMES, PRIVATE PLANES, ETC

I also want to finish by saying climate change is real. The climate does change. The issue is global warming.

2

Do you live in New Jersey or the NYC Area? Please come down to my University. We have some of the most cutting edge research and climate technology in academia. The professors here can show you exactly how we know that rapid man made climate change is a fact using the data. Open invitation.

3

Also, the first point about the one claim of 97% being inaccurate is completely stupid. If you at the meta data on all the studies it wavers unflinchingly at it’s lowest to 90%. An Average of 95%

4

It’s like the old saying goes: Conservatives are climate deniers, Liberals are Economic deniers.

2 Likes
5

“Climate change: How do we know?”

“Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming”

“Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

1 Like
6

Climate change is real for sure but let’s be careful about “scientific consensus”. Many scientists firmly believed that intelligence varied depending on Race not that long ago (until the late 1980s in Canada!) . Now, this pseudo-scientific nonsense is applied when talking about “gender fluidity” and so on. Scientists are not immune to trends and know what will get funded (and what will not). Physics and mathematics are pretty much the only ones that you can always trust.

I also understand developing countries not wanting to be penalized because it’s “too late for them” and think that because of that we won’t get anywhere with international treaties. I feel like this will be solved at the local level since having to pay dictators ruling developing countries for them to install wind turbines that they probably won’t be using or, even better, not even installing seems too optimistic to say the least. Look at the incredible progress that has been done in that direction in the North America in the last 30 years… Not one supranational body forced us to make these changes.

“It’s like the old saying goes: Conservatives are climate deniers, Liberals are Economic deniers.”

That’s very accurate and the biggest problem here is that what’s good for the economy is very often terrible for the environment. Should we tell unemployed people that it’s tough luck because we need to leave the planet as it is for their unborn great-grandchildren ?

***To be honest, I still don’t understand how much of it is our fault and how much of it can’t be helped and would love for someone to enlighten me on that.

1 Like
7

"A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to “cancel out” a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires “external” forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, “it’s just a natural cycle” is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn’t warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide."

2 Likes
8
9

If you want to argue about the economics of renewable energy, the paris agreement, the difficulties of diplomacy in this regard. Great. All very real and important concerns. Let’s talk about that and be real with the facts and economic realities.

Let’s talk about the dangerous geopolitics of a swift devaluing of oil resources… we already seeing that now with the rise of North American natural gas lowering crude oil prices: The biggest driver in much of the conflict right now in the middle east and central Asia. As the show archer bluntly put it. “You think the middle East is messed up now, just wait until nobody needs their oil anymore”.

Having said that, If you want to argue or speculate about the accuracy of the science, I won’t have any of it. Most people on this board who argue this point demonstrate a total lack of understanding of science:
Climate vs weather, global climate patterns over time, and how scientific consensus comes to be. It’s not a debate, and at this point you will need to be educated on the subject and have some pretty extraordinary evidence of some kind. Just as would if you were to suspect that the scientific consensus on Gravity or Evolution could be wrong. It is manmade, physically speaking we can reverse it if humanity were to curtail greenhouse emissions. Fact.

1 Like
10

Indeed, earth warms too quickly for it to be a natural process. Previous periods of heating took much more time, which allowed flora and fauna to accustom to it. As it is now we are going to cause another mass extinction.

11

I am not entirely sure if we can still reverse it, wasn’t there a 40 years delay between emissions and raising temperature? For that reason alone I feel like we can only make the effects less disastrous. One thing for certain, denying climate change just to gain some more profit from old industries is going to cost us a lot. Not only in terms of polluted environment but also economically.

1 Like
12

@usablefiber great job!

@Oxygen.

“I also want to finish by saying climate change is real. The climate does change. The issue is global warming.”

As @usablefiber said is important knows the difference between climate and weather.

There is a huge gap between what science and who is involved with know, and the general public. Our society is extremely scientifically illiterate; one of the factors is the fact that in the last decades its knowledge has advanced so much that it takes a long time to acquire decent knowledge.
Furthermore, people are very likely to believe in any “scientific” claim. Just google it: Cure for hypertension, AIDS / Hiv, among others, it will be very easy to find several “cures” made by a small number of “scientists” or “doctors” and are completely absurd, however, they succeed with a very illiterate and desperate people.
I always like to show that everyone is prone to this by asking people:

  1. Einstein was a genius? (Everyone says YES)
  2. Why? (Silence… that’s it, almost no one know)

@jaliscostate I hope I have convinced you in the other forum that it is our fault the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore global warming. The implications @usablefiber explained very well.

I would like to add further information: Even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun is not the hottest, Venus, on the other hand, occupies that position. For several years scientists have tried to find out whether Venus has atmosphere and after that what it is composed. In the last century the Soviet Union after several attempts has managed to measure and show that it is 96% composed of carbon dioxide, besides that its temperature was extremely high. The explanation as well as the reason is the greenhouse effect.
Although this will not happen to the Earth is valuable their knowledge, mainly, not to underestimate the greenhouse effect.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

5 Likes
13

Thank you!

“Our society is extremely scientifically illiterate; one of the factors is the fact that in the last decades its knowledge has advanced so much that it takes a long time to acquire decent knowledge.”

As true as that is, there are cures that are shut down because they won’t make as much money. (Not talking about HIV or AIDS, but other diseases do have at least steps that can be taken to lessen or get rid of it, but doctors don’t talk about these). What I am saying is that we still have doctors, scientists, and other highly regarded professions that DO lie about things.

  1. Einstein was a genius? (Everyone says YES)
  2. Why? (Silence… that’s it, almost no one know)

True, although wish people knew that there were others just as smart or even smarter that did great things too. Wish people were educated.

14

Up next: A Flat World Thread!

1 Like
15

Sadly, no the evidence against that is too strong to create a valid claim. (I researched it too, but with that there really are very little holes. There’s nothing to suggest the Earth is really flat.

16

Recently I read two articles, one from The Lancet Planetary Health and the other from the Asian Development Bank. The first, on the risk of temperature increase for the European population; the other on Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific Ocean.
Highly recommended for interested on the subject.

Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: a data-driven prognostic study:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(17)30082-7.pdf

Region at Risk: The Human Dimensions of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific:

17

“Please note that the temperature stopped increasing in 1998 according to satellite data (RSS and UAH).”

This is not true. The claim has been made since 1998 because that year was particularly hot compared to the temperatures of years around it. There is of course random variability in temperature from year to year that is not related to climate change, and 1998 happened to be really hot in comparison to other years in the 90s. It is not hot in comparison to the last 10 years and was cooler than the last few years. Here is an example of the temperature records given in decadal averages, which is much better than yearly averages

738×525 53.7 KB

The time period between 2010 and 2017 is not shown there, but it is quite a bit hotter than the 2000s.

“The computer models all ASSUME that water vapor is the actual culprit, causing more warming than brought on by co2 increase.”

I cannot say what all models do, but the best climate models do not assume this about water vapor. These are calculated within the models using the well known infared absorption properties of water vapor.

“But nobody really knows whether water vapor feedback is positive or negative.”

This claim has just been made up. The effects of water vapor as a greenhouse gas are well known.

I would like to go into more of the claims made in the original post, but I don’t have time at the moment. Maybe something for later.

1 Like
18

Scott Adams on climate change :

900×439 145 KB

19

A very dishonest cartoon.

1 Like
20

Not loving this 30*C day here in the new york city area… in october.