97% Climate Change Consensus Debunked

So when the models are wrong, they are still right?

 

Except they are right. A couple of the papers I've just posted are conclusions or continuations of models posed in 2000 (all of the papers posted are from 2010 on) and are reporting on outcomes aka droughts, increasing ocean temp, loss of ocean life, etc. All of us have been hearing that these things would happen if climate change went left unchanged, and these papers show that they HAVE happened.

 

Not even the IPCC puts any confidence in the alarmist cries of increased droughts (warming is supposed to increase rainfall). All the warmist alarmism is just that, not based on any proof, just unproven predictions. Hurricanes are at an all time low, tornadoes are at an all time low. Alarmists cried they would get worse. Ice was supposed to all be gone by now in the Arctic. Whenever an alarmist warning doesn't come true, they come up with another based on a current event. Heck, they even claimed cooling was caused by warming. Go figure.

BTW, a paper is not proof of anything.

 

You keep making claims but don't back them up with evidence. They are just empty claims: did the IPCC release a statement? Where are the statistics on tornadoes and hurricanes? Where are these papers claiming global cooling? Peer reviewed papers (Primary literature) from trusted scientific magazines such as Nature can be constituted as evidence. If these can't be considered evidence, than any article posted, in the same train of thought, is not evidence, and we're all just shouting into the wind and not actually debating anything.

If you look at the first drought paper it proposes an increase in "hydroclimatic intensity," a fancy way to say it rains more all at once, leading to a decrease in the number of wet days and an increase in the number of dry days a.k.a. more droughts.

All of these papers that have recently been published are observations of "alarmist warnings" that were given over 10 years ago, occurring today. (again: ocean life dying off with the warming of the oceans, longer droughts actually being seen, glacial melt with increase of CO2) These papers are reviews of things that HAVE happened, and then applying those historical events to models that humans can use to prevent them from happening again or (in the case of coral life) mitigate the damage currently happening.

 

The climate models are arguably over sensitive as per the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations that caused the IPCC AR5 to reduce its decadal projections of climate change relative to the actual climate model simulations. AR4 was overconfident. Oversimplification of complicated climate science and overconfidence in conclusions damages the trust in the science. The IPCC AR5 expresses low confidence in global warming contributing to regional weather events. Sorry, but drought has happened in places like California many times in the past and for decades at a time. The Southwest has been warming since before Europeans landed on the continent and why the native inhabitants abandoned many of their cities there.

Right now all of the alarmism is based on computer models. There are many other hypothesis and the current ones have a lot of uncertainties and there is still much we don't know.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. They can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

Deforestation is likely a driver of any man made warming far more than any emissions. An area the size of England, Wales and Scotland (50 million acres) is cut down every year around the world. Trees are nature's carbon sinks. When that much carbon sink is removed every year, they are fighting a losing battle by simply controlling emissions. Unless the main thrust of climate change "control" if that's possible, is putting a stop to deforestation, don't bother us with trivial pursuits.

 

There is evidence somewhere I read that old growth forests are poorer converters of CO2 than new growth.

 

I agree that AR4 was a bit overconfident, but many of its models were dead on (i.e. Tundra biosphere predictions including species abundance and diversity as well as terrestrial effects in ice melting and ocean temperatures, Sea level predictions, and most sea life effective predictions). Yes, I'm not saying droughts don't happen, of course they do. What has been observed is, "Late twentieth-century observations also exhibit dominant positive HY-INT [hydroclimatic] trends, providing a hydroclimatic signature of late twentieth-century warming. The authors find that increasing HY-INT is physically consistent with the response of both precipitation intensity and dry spell length to global warming. Precipitation intensity increases because of increased atmospheric water holding capacity. However, increases in mean precipitation are tied to increases in surface evaporation rates, which are lower than for atmospheric moisture. This leads to a reduction in the number of wet days and an increase in dry spell length."

Alarmism has a right to be present though. We, as a people, are having an effect on the environment causing quicker climate change (of which one facet is global warming). This fact is readily presented in the AR5 based off of changes seen not only between AR4 and AR5 but in the last 100 or so years as well. Its not the fact that the trend is already present (which it is, of course) its that we are increasing the trend, bringing it to the extremes, if you will.

 

There is no doubt that it warmed from the 70's until 98. It also warmed the same rate or greater from the 1900's to the 1940's before the increase of CO2 above the average. The models are CO2 centric and all the dire predictions are based on them but the trend has changed, unexpectedly for the CO2 centric hypothesis. Not only Russian scientists but a new model coming out predicts a cooling trend. This model can hind cast much better than CO2 centric models can. The next couple of decades will bear one or the other out. There is no doubt that CO2 contributes to warming but there is no consensus on how much or what the affects will be if it does warm.

 

I have not read enough on global warming specifically and direct connections with CO2. However, the effects of warming on the planet are evident as seen in AR5 and a few of the papers I posted earlier. Specifically, negative shifts in tidal, tundra, and tropical biodiversity and species richness are expressed in the AR5 as well as some unique but interesting observations relating increasing temperature with an increase in rock slides of a certain area (just thought it was cool haha). Other effects directly related to warming in the AR5: Regional water balance shifts, increased ice melt, increase in water temperatures - all of these attributing to floods and destruction of local freshwater marine life, drying of the land due to permafrost actually leading to forest fires, increased river erosion of several thousand Greenland and Alaskan rivers combined with reduced overall river flow, as well as a global decrease of thousands of k-selected species (longer living, less offspring).

While CO2 may not be the only cause of warming, many papers, including the AR5 mention anthropocentric global warming or human caused global warming. In fact, there is a paper that states the original issue of this thread (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024) saying,
" Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropocentric global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." and when authors of these papers were invited to rate their own papers as for or against the number remains practically consistent, "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."

 

John Cook's paper on consensus is meaningless. John Cook runs Skeptical Science, an alarmist blog. Do some better background check on what the consensus really is.

 

ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract --> a poll constructed of 10,257 Earth Scientists of which 90% had PhD's and 7% had Master's degrees:

When asked "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 80% said yes.

Of those who have written papers on the subject of climate change --> 97.4% said yes

 

No one asked any scientist anything. Cook and friends (of Skeptical Science) reviewed papers and determined if they supported AGW or not. Some of the papers supporting AGW were pretty thin. Many of the papers only mentioned global warming and were not a treatise on it. They started out with a lot more papers but thinned it down to a number close to the one you posted and from those, determined that which papers supported AGW to come up with that number.

 

I posted a different primary source paper by Dr. Peter T. Doran and Dr. Maggie Kendall Zimmerman in the post you just quoted

 

Your link isn't any good.

 

The survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers. The two simplistic questions asked would get a positive response from many skeptics. 96% of the scientist that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone. What is the opinion of the worlds scientists? The survey does not ask climate scientists if they believe global warming is primarily driven by human activity. Because of this, the survey responses cannot answer this question. Another problem with citing this study is that is only asks the opinion of scientists about whether or not global warming is occurring and humans are having an impact, but it does not address whether or not scientists are concerned about climate change.

The two questions asked.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

'Significant contributing factor' is pretty subjective. A better question would have been: Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

 

If you disregard the "whittling," you still have a sizable representation of the American public. So while global views may not be represented, maybe we can at least get a view of what the American scientific community thinks. Of this community, 80% answered yes to question 2. If the majority of scientists(90%) think that global warming is occurring (aka that the earth is warming) and the majority of scientists (80%) think that the change in climate is being partially caused by humans, it can be assumed that the majority of scientists believe that the Earth is warming and humans are contributing.

If you realize that the question they are asking is not whether we are the MAIN contributing factor but rather that we ARE a significant contributing factor (so while we may not be #1, but we are putting our best foot forward to hurry it along), that point becomes moot. The consensus they are aimed at is not the political leanings of the scientists over what will happen to the Earth IF climate change is a thing (aka are they concerned about it) but rather 1)whats going on? and 2) are we contributing to it?

 

You really think 75 out of 10,256 is a sizable representation? The questions were too simplistic to garner anything valuable. The was originally a thesis.

 

No, I don't. If you notice I said whittling aside - so out of all responses (3146) - I also formulated my argument around that number, using the 80% statistic, rather than the 97.4%.
It garnered the information the paper was written to represent -> 1) what's going on? 2) are we significantly contributing to it? I'll admit it is a qualitative assessment, but that doesn't make it moot.

 

All self chosen, so basically most of them either didn't answer or didn't think the poll was worth anything. It is pretty worthless as it stands.