It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

97 Percent Consensus, what do the papers really say?

page: 3
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I don't see the debate about the actual physics, which was settled over a century ago. More CO2 = warmer surface, ceteris paribus - this part is rather important, given that the Earth has seen a 10-30% reduction in sunlight reaching the surface because of our reflective pollution.

That mostly doesn't stick around very long, either - what do you think is going to happen if we reduce said dimming given that we are still warming in spite of that dimming and the protestations of certain conspirators trying to downplay it?

Hand-wringing either way over a tiny subset of a literature review (what's that, about 5% of the total for explicit either way combined?) is pedantic at best, along with being a tremendous waste of time.
edit on 20Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:45:41 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Perhaps those that reject AGW subscribe to something like the Unified Model.
Remember, 100 years ago 97% of doctors thought mercury was the cure for syphilis.

The above findings can help rectify physical inconsistencies in the current GH concept and assist in the development of a Unified Theory of Climate (UTC) based on a deeper and more robust understanding of various climate forcings and the time scales of their operation.


Link
edit on 9-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Air pressure?
Are you for real?

That is an idiotic paper by people who just can't seem to understand physics.

You remember that chart I post all over that you are simply unwilling to respond to? That's observations of the atmosphere from a satellite, circa 1970, in radiation bands:


Also, you know, the fact we can observe infrared radiation being reflected from water vapor (aka clouds).

Or maybe the fact that, in the atmosphere, it's warmer at the surface then declines up to the tropopause where it remains fairly constant then rises until the top of the stratosphere before cooling again...

If you somehow still believe that lunacy, you are beyond help. The fact that you even bring it up strongly indicates that.
edit on 21Fri, 09 Jun 2017 21:37:07 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Hey, I'm just wondering why more of the papers rejected AGW that accepted it was responsible for >50 percent of the warming. Why did you take that as me subscribing to the Universal Model? Do you always tell others they are lunatics and beyond help if they do not agree with you? It appears that paper was written by two PhD's, lunatics I guess.

You can continue to shout from the rooftops about the Stefan Boltzmann law, there's more too it than that.
JoNova has 218 comments on an article she ran, go leave your two cents over there.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it. Also that law, like the underlying Planck’s law, relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it, so it cannot be applied to a layer that does not physically emit. We must tread carefully.

JoNova

Nobel Prize winner for physics say he's a skeptic and Global Warming has become a new religion.

edit on 9-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

Hey, I'm just wondering why more of the papers rejected AGW that accepted it was responsible for >50 percent of the warming. Why did you take that as me subscribing to the Universal Model? Do you always tell others they are lunatics and beyond help if they do not agree with you? It appears that paper was written by two PhD's, lunatics I guess.

You can continue to shout from the rooftops about the Stefan Boltzmann law, there's more too it than that.
JoNova has 218 comments on an article she ran, go leave your two cents over there.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it. Also that law, like the underlying Planck’s law, relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it, so it cannot be applied to a layer that does not physically emit. We must tread carefully.

JoNova

Nobel Prize winner for physics say he's a skeptic and Global Warming has become a new religion.

YOU linked that article. YOU put forth "those that reject AGW subscribe to something like the Unified Model. " YOU are in that category, are you not?
If not, why are you on this crusade against it?

I grow weary of madness portraying itself as science or fact. That is what that paper is: madness. It ignores so much of reality in order to back a pre-formed hypothesis - I think that's what Ivar Giaever said in that video you've linked about how pseudoscience comes about - starting with the hypothesis and only look for things that confirm the hypothesis, while ignoring other factors.

Sometimes people don't know what they're talking about, such as PhDs in fields that aren't qualified to critique physics as they have. That would be those two authors - and you.

Speaking of which, your Ivar Giaever there is touting 1 child per woman and a lot of appeals that aren't based in science, but in emotion. He mocks an increase of 0.8 degrees Celsius, which tells me he doesn't really know the tiny range of Earth's temperature where complex life has existed.

I also question whether you bother to read any links - you would perhaps be surprised to see most of them are from Dr. Roy Spencer.

In fact, here's a challenge - Stefan calculated the Sun's temperature by using his law:
YOU explain in YOUR words WHY "The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it" is true or false.

Point to consider if you take this up: the Moon.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

1. There had been no rise in the global temperatures for the last 18 years until this last el nino.
2. There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
3. There has been no statistically significant rise in numbers of Hurricanes or Cyclones.
4. There is a manufactured scientific consensus.
5. Crop yields are up all over the world partially due to the C02 fertilization effect.
6. Increased C02 should cause some warming but the models are failing.
7. There is not absolute proof that the increase in C02 is even manmade.
8. If and when the temperature trend turns downwards, your guys heads will pop, and mark my words, the IPCC will come up with a way to blame C02.
9. All the money wasted on this could have been put to use cleaning up real pollution, there will be more popping heads when Trump dismantles Baraq's clean air regs and takes C02 off the pollution list.
10. What percentage, if any, is man responsible for the current climate change?

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.
There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

The UAH satellite dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).


Link

edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven

1. There had been no rise in the global temperatures for the last 18 years until this last el nino.
2. There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
3. There has been no statistically significant rise in numbers of Hurricanes or Cyclones.
4. There is a manufactured scientific consensus.
5. Crop yields are up all over the world partially due to the C02 fertilization effect.
6. Increased C02 should cause some warming but the models are failing.
7. Thanks for pointing out Dr. Roy Spencer, he says there is no proof that the increase in C02 is even manmade.
8. If and when the temperature trend turns downwards, your guys heads will pop, and mark my words, the IPCC will come up with a way to blame C02.
9. All the money wasted on this could have been put to use cleaning up real pollution, there will be more popping heads when Trump dismantles Baraq's clean air regs and takes C02 off the pollution list.


The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.
There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

The UAH satellite dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).


Link

1. Dec. 2105 was a year and a half ago. Why are you still citing it as if it is a thing anymore? Time has moved on, even if UAH6.0 has been adjusted to increase older 'records' - I'll keep it very simple and use some arbitrary dates too:
Year average
1978: -0.36
1979: -0.209167
YEARS BELOW MEAN: 2/2
TREND: +0.150833/yr
1980: -0.0416667
1981: -0.110833
1982: -0.295
1983: -0.04
1984: -0.236667
1985: -0.36
1986: -0.218333
1987: 0.05
1988: 0.0391667
1989: -0.208333
YEARS BELOW MEAN: 8/10
TREND: +0.00373737/yr
1990: 0.0125
1991: 0.02
1992: -0.28
1993: -0.201667
1994: -0.0633333
1995: 0.0708333
1996: -0.00666667
1997: -0.00583333
1998: 0.4825
1999: -0.0158333
YEARS BELOW MEAN: 6/10
TREND: +0.0307424/yr
2000: -0.0208333
2001: 0.115833
2002: 0.216667
2003: 0.186667
2004: 0.0816667
2005: 0.199167
2006: 0.113333
2007: 0.159167
2008: -0.101667
2009: 0.0925
YEARS BELOW MEAN: 2/10
TREND: -0.00540909/yr
2010: 0.3325
2011: 0.02
2012: 0.0558333
2013: 0.13
2014: 0.176667
2015: 0.258333
2016: 0.503333
2017: 0.312
YEARS BELOW MEAN: 0/7.42
TREND: +0.0370042/yr
TOTAL TREND: +0.0123902/yr
Note how different 1998 is from every other year. It is an extreme outlier for its time in the satellite records (though not as much in terrestrial records). The overall trend remains rather obvious.

2. Yes there has been.

3. Sure whatever.

4. No there isn't.

5. Sure whatever.

6. Models are poor approximations to reality. Some are useful.

7. Wrong, Dr. Roy Spencer says this:

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels.


8. Why do you think temperatures would turn downwards?

9. Pretty sure that already happened.

10. You've ignored my challenge and any rebuttals in my post. Typical, really. What a waste of time.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven
1. The warming does not correlate to the amount of C02 put into the atmosphere. We didn't have an 18 year pause where we didn't put any C02 into the atmosphere, but the temps did pause. I ignored the el Nino year. Do your models and projections show them?

2. I'll trust NOAA's tidal gauge data instead of you papers semi empirical models and proxy data.
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses


3. ty

4. we disagree consensus debunked 97 times.

5. ty

6. the models should be open source, this is science, why are they hiding their code?

7. Very sneaky. Allow me to quote the entire point Spencer was making.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.


8. I can't predict the future, it's just a hunch.

9. Not yet it hasn't, give the administration time.

10. As I have said before I do not wish to argue against a fundamental law, but I do know there is much more to climate than just the Stefan Boltzmann equation. As the IPCC has stated "the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. "
edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven
1. The warming does not correlate to the amount of C02 put into the atmosphere. We didn't have an 18 year pause where we didn't put any C02 into the atmosphere, but the temps did pause. I ignored the el Nino year. Do your models and projections show them?

2. I'll trust NOAA's tidal gauge data instead of you papers semi empirical models and proxy data.
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses


3. ty

4. we disagree consensus debunked 97 times.

5. ty

6. the models should be open source, this is science, why are they hiding their code?

7. Very sneaky. Allow me to quote the entire point Spencer was making.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.


8. I can't predict the future, it's just a hunch.

9. Not yet it hasn't, give the administration time.

10. As I have said before I do not wish to argue against a fundamental law, but I do know there is much more to climate than just the Stefan Boltzmann equation. As the IPCC has stated "the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. "

1) The alleged 'pause' shows up primarily in satellite data sets, which are fraught with problems. Clearly the previous didn't help, so I'll alter the arbitrary measurement considered from the data above:
1970s Mean : -0.284583
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.223583 (through May 2017)
WHERE'S THE PAUSE NOW?

Hell, set aside CO2 for a second - what about Sulfur Dioxide? We emit a lot of that, and that's an enormous cooling component associated with volcanic eruptions. Do you think that does nothing, either? What about stratospheric ozone and our destruction of it?

2. The article you linked says this for the conclusion, which is entirely different from your image:

The findings of this exploratory study in search of global sea level accelerations during the 20th century did find only 8 out of 27 tide gauge stations with statistically significant evidence for their presence using a new kinematic representation with trend, acceleration, and compounded long periodic variations incorporated. The new model also accounted for the effect of autocorrelated random errors to avoid overestimating statistical significance of the estimated parameters in the solutions, in contrast to the baseline model based solutions of earlier investigations, which suggested 16 tide gauge stations with statistically significant accelerations (p



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
1. There was a pause in the satellite data. HadCRUT 4 dataset shows much the same.

2. I double checked the original link, it appeared to be good, not sure how you found the wrong conclusion.
Link




edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven




7. You want to talk sneakiness? You wrote:

7. Thanks for pointing out Dr. Roy Spencer, he says there is no proof that the increase in C02 is even manmade.
then edited your post after I responded to it to change that to:

7. There is not absolute proof that the increase in C02 is even manmade.

He's saying he believes the rise is anthropogenic, but points at isotopic ratios as not being proof. Let me remind you of something that does indicate a rise in CO2 (not C02), because us burning carbon fixes it to atmospheric oxygen and we're doing that a whole hell of a lot:

We know roughly how much carbon we burn, and it isn't that difficult to calculate changes in the atmosphere:

originally posted by: Greven
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

We know about how much CO2 is produced by burning fuel, and about how much we burn each year:
Coal: 0.093303951 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 153,000,000,000 million Btu in 2012 = 14,275,504,503 tonnes of CO2 = ~14 Gt of CO2
Oil: 0.071304721 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 90 million barrels per day * 365 * 5.8 million Btu/barrel = 13,585,688,492 tonnes of CO2 = ~13 Gt CO2
Combined: 27 Gt CO2/yr
There are of course others, but the combined emissions are already in excess of the increase. I don't really feel like looking up the 2011-2012 values, but the change is as I recall lower than 2014-2015.

8. Hunches aren't scientific.

10. X energy goes in, Y energy goes out, and you get both using Stefan-Boltzmann. That does not change. What does change is the distribution of said energy in the atmosphere. We have altered this distribution by both reducing energy striking the surface and through the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.


A formatting error has hidden part of your previous post, I'll bring it to light.

7. Wasn't being sneaky, just cleaning up the post, it was happening at the same time as you were responding. Happens sometimes, get over it. Anyways it can be argued that the C02 increase is offgassing from the oceans as a result of rising temperatures.

8. true enough

10. If it was that simple the science would be settled, and it clearly is not.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee


Wasn't being sneaky, just cleaning up the post, it was happening at the same time as you were responding. Happens sometimes, get over it.


I've noticed it aswell in my discussions with you. It seems to happen alot, with you.
Must be alot at stake, right?

edit on 10-6-2017 by Jubei42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

Whatever, i've noticed you're a slanderous puke that doesn't back up any of their statements with evidence.

Greven debates in a manner that people can learn from, he offers evidence and substance to his posts, you offer nothing.

I may not always agree with Greven, but I welcome his participation.
edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The '97%' figure was always known to be fraudulent.. there seems to be a more sensible approach now to debating the issue properly.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42




Link

I noticed Edward Teller is amongst those that have signed the petition. From his Wikipedia page:


Teller was one of the first prominent people to raise the danger of climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels. At an address to the membership of the American Chemical Society in December 1957, Teller warned that the large amount of carbon-based fuel that had been burnt since the mid-19th century was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would "act in the same way as a greenhouse and will raise the temperature at the surface", and that he had calculated that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 10% "an appreciable part of the polar ice might melt."
However, as better data and models were created, Teller, in his later years, would come to deride much of what he saw as increasingly common exaggerations and general doomsdayism on the matter of climate change. Thus, he became one of the most prestigious signers of the Oregon Petition. The petition, drafted in 1998, states, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate".

edit on 10-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join