Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Comments 1751 to 1800:
-
Albert at 15:26 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
I tried to insert a graphic from DMI showing Arctic ice extent from 1979 but without success.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
The URL shows a decline of about 15% from 1979 to about 2012 but unfortunately most warmists only refer to the minimum monthly values rather than all the data.
Its like only giving January rainfall totals instead of the yearly totals.
The graph above showing Arctic ice just shows reconstructions because there was no accurate way to measure total Arctic ice before satellites.
I could show you reconstructions showing significantly different trends but I know it would be a waste of time.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.As for your assertion that yearly totals should be looked at, not January (for rainfall) - if the goal of an analysis is to look at crop production in Australia, then January precip is probably much more informative than annual totals.
Any argument of "all the data" is usually bogus. For Arctic sea ice, you don't include seasonal ice cover in the tropics, either. You don't divide the ice area by total ocean area (or the area of the globe). Every scientific analysis requires the use of relevant data. You have not provided any argument as to the relevance of using annual totals.
As for offering to show "reconstructions showing significantly different trends", you fail if you do not show that the "significantly different" claim is supported by actual, real statistical analysis. You know: the kind of things that real scientists do.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:21 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @139... Would you like a quick tutorial on how to post images here?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:18 PM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
If one thinks about how Albert is trying to frame this, it makes no sense. I've heard the same tripe from other deniers over the years; he's not the first to come up with this.
He's trying to re-frame the question from "in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW" into "in order to determine the percentage of research papers that endorse and quantify human contribution to GW as >50%."
It's quite a nonsensical and pointless framing of his (their) own creation that bears no relevance to anything that would have the least bit of interest to anyone.
Once again, it is fascinating to watch such entrenched, intractable displays like this.
-
Albert at 15:11 PM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
linear trends have their uses but can be misleading and if the above trend had a 12 month filter, that would give a more realistic interpretation of Arctic ice trend.
the start and stop times of linear trends can heavily influence what a trend looks like and the assumption that Arctic ice is on a permanent downward spiral rather than cyclic is just speculation.
The end of summer Arctic ice has been predicted regularly since 2006 by the top Arctic experts but it never eventuates.
Moderator Response:[BL] Your baseless assertion about predictions of the end of arctic summer ice needs to be backed up by specific references.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:03 PM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert... I think you should take a moment to read the comments policy for this site. Accusations as you've just leveled are against policy.
As for your question, no one was trying to hide anything. The data is there available for anyone who wishes to dig into it. But it's not really relevant to the results of the paper. It just creates fodder for people like you whose intent is to misinterpret the data.
Regarding the AMS paper, different from the Cook paper, that research was about the opinions of their members. As already stated, the paper was structured similar to Doran/Zimmerman where the subjects had varying degrees of expertise in the subject matter. Once you got to publishing PhD level scientists, yes there was a consensus in the 97% range.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:29 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@933... Missed this one: "The only 'evidence' for the positive feedback theory are models which are trying to model something where many variables are only guesstimates."
Incorrect.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:24 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"But Michael Mann showed us in his model that the medieval warm period and little ice age never existed so all those thousands of scientists that proved they did exist must be wrong."
a) Please look up the definition of the word "heterogeneous."
b) Assuming you're talking about MBH98/99, that was nearly 25 years ago and their research only went back too the MWP. Perhaps you should catch up on more recent research.
(Yes, this is quickly veering off-topic... as one would expect.)
Moderator Response:[PS] Any further discussion on this thread that is not about the consensus will be deleted.
[BL] Discussion of the Medieval Warm Period should go on one of these threads:
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:18 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@934... "believe it or not there are other factors that effect global temperature like, the sun, solar winds, magnetic fields, cosmic rays...(etc., etc.)."
This is starting to gish into a big gallop.
If you're going to accept low CS figures then you also need to accept high CS as well, otherwise you're just cherry picking your preferred conclusions without considering the full body of research.
There are good reasons to believe the high CS figures have low probability, as there are even stronger reasons to believe low CS figures are improbable.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:12 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@933... "Many scientists believe that the positive feedback theory because of any temperature change in the atmosphere is grossly overstated and some even think the feedback is negative."
Yes, members of the infinitessimal group of dismissives whose research is so bad that it can't get published in decent journals.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:09 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"The 2016 American Meteorological Society conducted poll of their members..."
(sigh) So, you're going to misinterpret this research as well?
Read that paper again, please. The conclusion was that the AMS needed to do a better job of educating their members. It was set up much like Doran/Zimmerman showing how agreement with human causation increased with greater levels of expertise.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:06 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@932... "How can you misinterpret a plain English statement saying 'explicitly endorses >50% of warming is human induced'?"
Yes, this is indeed the exact sentence you're attempting to use to reject the conclusions of the paper. Remember, the conclusion of the paper is that 97.3% of the research agrees that human activities are primarily responsible for global warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:03 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@931... "This puts them in category 2 or 3 and not category 5,6 or 7."
Nope.
Rejecting well established feedbacks in favor of an unsupportable idea that ECS is 1.2°C is clearly minimizing human contribution since it's abundantly obvious that CS is higher just based on warming to date.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@930... And that is your disingenuous interpretation of the paper. Everyone else understands this statement is what defines the endorsement categories relative to endorsement vs minimizing.
-
Albert at 09:57 AM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
"BL] In the absence of an argument from you that short-term variations actually indicate a departure from long-term trends, there is nothing to challenge."
You keep misinterpreting the point I am making is that Arctic ice thickness and volume stopped shrinking at least 11 years ago, I made no other claim.
What do you mean by a "long term trend"? the Satellite measuring of Arctic ice and global temperatures started in 1979 and we know that global temperatures reduced from about 1940 until the mid 1970s and we know that Arctic ice is sensitive to global temperature so it is logical to believe that Arctic was low in 1940.
I will find some evidence that scientists believed Arctic ice was low in 1940 but I suspect that even if I did, you wouldn't acknowledge it
Moderator Response:[BL] Your claim that volume "stopped shrinking" is a claim that things have changed from a previous trend. To support that claim, you need to provide statistical analysis that the short-term data is not within the normal variation of that long-term trend. Simply asserting a claim over and over is not valid support.
Look at your own graph from your original comment, repeated here for convenience:
.You do see how the data you presented drops from +7 to -7 over the past 40 years? You do see that the data over the past decade is within the error bars of that overall trend? You do understand the statistical importance of trends, error bars, etc?
You have also been previously pointed to a link that discusses the myth about low ice amounts in the 1940s. It is not logical to believe that ice was low in 1940 when evidence says that it was not.
-
Albert at 09:46 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"Such low ECS figures would mean the earth's climate should be almost perfectly stable over geologic time (no glacial-interglacial cycles) and we know that's not true."
Rob, believe it or not there are other factors that effect global temperature like, the sun, solar winds, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, transportation and retention and expulsion of ocean heat, volcanic activity above and below water, aerosols, clouds, gravitational pull of other planets, milankovitcg cycles, earth rotation wobble, shifting of poles, etc.
Our current warming cycle started around 1700 as The little ice age peaked negatively and we have been warming sporadically ever since.
its all perfectly normal with many historical precedents in the Holocene and previous interglacials.
1000 years ago Vikings colonised and farmed parts of Greenland that are still permafrost today. How can this be unless Greenland was far hotter than today. etc Etc etc.
But Michael Mann showed us in his model that the medieval warm period and little ice age never existed so all those thousands of scientists that proved they did exist must be wrong.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is getting offtopic and you are now trying gish-gallop of long debunked myths in violation of comments policy. Use the search function to find the appropriate myth and post your evidence from reputable source if you wish to dispute it. Without supporting evidence, you are simply engaging in sloganeering.
It takes a certain chutzpah to believe that scientists have somehow ignored other factors. Try reading the Attribution chapter of the IPCC report to form an informed opinion. Similarly, the ice age cycle is well-understood which even cursory reading would show.
Since you dont appear to be to learn, we can only assume that you are trying to persuade us to a different opinion. Trying to change the mind of well-informed people means becoming well-informed yourself. Repeating nonsense doesnt do that.
-
Albert at 09:26 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"Dismissing feedbacks is an assertion of blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You just have to read the body of research."
I haven't dismissed any feedbacks, only the belief that they can be accurately measured. Many scientists believe that the positive feedback theory because of any temperature change in the atmosphere is grossly overstated and some even think the feedback is negative.
The only "evidence" for the positive feedback theory are models which are trying to model something where many variables are only guesstimates.
I programmed process computers for over 20 years and have a reasonable understanding of how models work.
If you you gave me the source code and runtime variable values of any model that purports to ""prove" positive feedback theory, I could show you in a short period of time that by adjusting these variables, any desired output could be achieved.
Moderator Response:[BL] The snipped portions represent accusations that the people developing climate models stick in any number they want, to achieve a desired result. That may be the way you code programs, but it is not the way climate modelers work.
Unless you can back up that serious accusation with proper references, future accusations will be deleted.
-
Albert at 09:13 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"What you're doing is disingenuously trying to misinterpret one sentence in the paper, ingoring the rest of what is clearly explained, in order to justify your personal need to reject the conclusions."
How can you misinterpret a plain English statement saying "explicitly endorses >50% of warming is human induced"?
I reject "your conclusions" not "the conclusions"
The 2016 American Meteorological Society conducted poll of their members in 2016 asking them if they believed humans were contributing to global warming was happening and 96% said yes. I would also have said yes and every sceptic I know as well. It was pretty much the same as Cooks categories 1,2 and 3.
But unlike Cook, they asked directly if they believed humans were the main cause of global warming and 67% said yes. This question was equivalent to Cooks category 1.
Moderator Response:[BL] Last sentence underlined for emphasis.
Have you given any thought at all as to what that 67% figure means for the erroneous 1.6% number you keep going back to? Are you capable of any consistent argument?
-
Albert at 09:02 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"No, Albert. Most "skeptics" do not endorse the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming. They minimize human contribution to warming"
Sorry Rob, that is not what a I said. Most sceptics accept the primary greenhouse theory where ECS is about 1.2C but Not the positive feedback theory where ECS increases to 3-4.5C.
This puts them in category 2 or 3 and not category 5,6 or 7.
So it's not surprising that categories 5,6 and 7 have low numbers.
Moderator Response:[BL] And it has been pointed out to you that the categories in the paper relate to recent warming, not ECS. You are fundamentally not understanding what the paper looks at.
-
Albert at 08:54 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). [emphasis added]"
And category 1 fits that definition perfectly.And just 64 out of the 4000 explicitly said that human activity was the main cause of global warning.
Moderator Response:[BL] You keep repeating this basic mathematical error. There is no justification for using the number of papers from categories 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (and the small part of 4 that means "uncertain") as a single group that disagrees with category 1.
Until you provide a justification for that grouping, future references to this calculation will be deleted.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:23 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
In order to come to the conclusions he is, Albert has to completely ignore this important statement in the introduction of the Cook paper.
We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). [emphasis added]
This is the fundamental premise of the research. This explains why there are endorse vs minimize categories. Albert is laser focused on a misinterpretation of only one sentence in the paper, to the exclusion of all else, in order to confirm his priors.
As I've pointed out innumerable times over the decade since the publication of Cook, the "skeptics" are more than welcome to do the exact same research and see what results they get. And in that decade none of them have taken up that challenge, more often than not coming up with lame excuses why they can't or won't.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:28 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@923... I'd agree with BL that the last sentence there is a quantification of >50%. But it's a moot point. Whether one were to put it in category 1 or 2 matters not, since both of those categories are endorsements of the idea that humans are the primary cause of modern warming.
So, one more time, the entire exercise this paper engages in is to separate research that endorses the position that humans are primarily responsible for warming and papers that minimize human responsibility. That is the very structure of the rating system. That is the fundamental premise stated in the title of the paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Papers either endorse AGW or they minimize it. If a paper claims that the direct effects of CO2 are too small compared to other natural factors that is a minimization of the anthropogenic element of global warming.
Moderator Response:[BL] For what it is worth, here are definitions for "mainly" and "main", from wiktionary.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mainly
1. Chiefly; for the most part.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/main#English
1. Of chief or leading importance; prime, principal.
2. Chief, most important, or principal in extent, size, or strength; consisting of the largest part. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:12 AM on 20 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert... Again, this is a great opportunity for a bet. I'd bet you, in 10 years, the decadal average (pick your ice metric) will be lower than the current decadal average.
Remember... Cooling is going to start right now! ;-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:04 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@922... No, Albert. Most "skeptics" do not endorse the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming. They minimize human contribution to warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:03 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
@921... "please stop throwing in red herrings like "minimise" and tell me why my direct quote is wrong?"
How can it be a red herring when it's written extensively into the paper?
What you're doing is disingenuously trying to misinterpret one sentence in the paper, ingoring the rest of what is clearly explained, in order to justify your personal need to reject the conclusions.
I'm continuing to engage with you on this topic because I find this very phenonenon utterly fascinating. I don't think you're at all a stupid person, but you seem to have a fanatical need for a particular conclusion. This is precisely what climate denial is. And it is precisely this weakness of the human mind that science has developed to compensate for.
Compared to most scientific research this Cook paper is a relatively simple experiment. It's also very simple to understand. The paper went through an extensive review process with lots of tough questions from reviewers. It was published in a respected journal. The conclusions are robust and since have become even more so.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:52 AM on 20 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @920... "...but if you believe that feedbacks are "well known" pleas provide an exampl that is not ambiguous."
a) You've accepted that the direct effect from doubling CO2 would cause 1.2°C of warming, therefore there would be some loss of ice cover and some increase in water vapor, both producing additional warming.
b) We have currently raised CO2 levels by about 50% and already seen about 1.2°C of warming in the modern era.
c) Such low ECS figures would mean the earth's climate should be almost perfectly stable over geologic time (no glacial-interglacial cycles) and we know that's not true.
d) CO2+feedbacks (~3°C) explain a great many other geologic effects related to temperature including the gradual fall in global temp over the past 60my.
Dismissing feedbacks is an assertion of blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You just have to read the body of research.
-
MA Rodger at 23:43 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @133/134,
Simply accepting anecdotal evidence from newspapers is not the way to determine historical Arctic ice conditions.
There are serious attempts to create records running back before the instrument era, like Walsh et al (2017) 'A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850' which is the subject of the CarbonBrief article linked @131 with the graphic @132. A little more recently there is Schweiger et al (2019) 'Arctic Sea Ice Volume Variability over 1901–2010: A Model-Based Reconstruction' which reaches similar conclusions, the graphic below from that paper showing rolling annual averages of Arctic SIV and annual red dots.
I would suggest you read the comment @123 if you feel that "no one has challenged the fact that Arctic ice thickness or extent has not dropped since 2012." And I do look at JAXA data and it evidently has "decreased since 2006" in that the JAXA annual average SIE 2006-22 has a linear trend of -0.032M sq km/y, a smaller decline than for the earlier part of the record (-0.51Msq km/y) but still a decline. So it has "dropped."
-
Eclectic at 23:28 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @921 & other posts ,
Evidently, you have not read the second part of the Cook 2013 paper, where it clearly shows your "1.6%" figure is so grossly wrong about the consensus. So grossly wrong, that it is difficult to believe you are being serious.
Likewise, you seem suspiciously uneducated about feedbacks/ runaways.
Just to throw you a bone : note that the global surface temperature has increased ~1.2 degreesC over about 170 years & an atmospheric CO2 rise of 50%. Try your math on that.
-
Albert at 21:27 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
But no one has challenged the fact that Arctic ice thickness or extent has not dropped since 2012 and if you look at the University of Bremen, JAXA and MASIE, they say that Arctic ice extent has not decreased since 2006.
Check it out.
Moderator Response:[BL] In the absence of an argument from you that short-term variations actually indicate a departure from long-term trends, there is nothing to challenge.
-
Albert at 21:24 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
"The NASA presentation of Arctic Sea Ice Extent from 1851 to 2017 does not show an 80 year cycle. It shows a fairly significant recent decline of extent of sea ice."
there is an abundance of evidence from newspapers and other sources that Arctic ice extent in the 1940s was low. If i did provide the evidence I suspect that you would just ignore it.
But I will if you request it.
Moderator Response:[BL] Don't bother. Newspapers are not a useful reference point, and this canard about ice in the 1940s has already been debunked on this thread:
https://skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-loss-1940s.htm
You need to find some more reliable sources.
-
Albert at 21:17 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
You asked for an example of category one where the abstract doesnt endorse a >50% quantity.
this is from an article abstract allegedly in category 1 about halons.
"Substitute fluorocarbons may have direct environmental impact, for example as greenhouse gases, or indirect impacts through the products of their decomposition in the environment. The mechanisms of that atmospheric decomposition are reviewed here and shown to be well established now. The end products are halogen acids and trifluoroacetic acid, all of which pre-exist in the environment in quantities greater than are expected to arise from fluorocarbon use and emissions. Furthermore, the growth in use of fluorocarbon replacements has been shown to be far less than the fall in CFC and Halon production. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have replaced less than one third of CFCs and are, themselves, ozone depleting substances that will be phased out under the Montreal Protocol. The growth in hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) amounts to about 10% of the fall in CFCs. It is likely that the impact of new fluorocarbons on climate change will be a very small fraction of the total impact, which comes mainly from the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
pmease tell me how this paper was considered to be category 1?
in fact, after reading all 64 abstracts i can only find about 45 actually endorsing a >50% anthropogenic effect.
Moderator Response:[BL] When providing material such as this, you should provide a link to the paper you are referring to. The paper in question is this one.
Which part of "comes mainly from the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" is hard for you to understand? It explicitly states that CO2 is the main factor - more than 50%.
-
Albert at 21:06 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
"Three endorse categories and 3 minimize categories."
and that is the statistical dishonesty of the study because Cook knew that most sceptics are in categories 2 and 3, not categories 6 and 7 so scientific papers expressing no or little belief in AGW would be minuscule.
Moderator Response:[BL] Accusations of dishonesty are specifically against the Comments Policy. This applies to accusations against people commenting here, or papers from the scientific literature.
-
Albert at 21:01 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
"Quite commonly I see statements saying that Cooks paper said the "97% of scientists believe that humans are largely (>50%) responsible for global warming" but Cooks paper category 1 clearly and unambiguously states that the figure is 1.6%."
please stop throwing in red herrings like "minimise" and tell me why my direct quote is wrong?
Moderator Response:[BL] Your quote is not a quote from the category descriptions, and "minimise" is a term used in five of the seven categories in the study, as included in the table I provided in comment 912 (which is directly from the supplemental data).
-
Albert at 20:54 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
"The direct effect from CO2 is, as you say, ~1.2°C but you can't just reject physics and say there wouldn't be feedbacks. The feedbacks are very well known"
Not true. Even a basic knowledge of the complexity of modelling feedback would tll that it is impossible to model or prove.
it cannot be replicated in the lab or models, and any so called proof can easily be shown to be nit true.
if you know the basics of feedback theory you would know that the output to any given input has to be known precisely otherwise you cannot determine anything.
To give just one example, increased evaporation causes clouds and precipitation and there Are many scientists who believe that the feedback can only be negative or else there would be an exerthermic runaway.
but if you believe that feedbacks are "well known" pleas provide an exampl that is not ambiguous.
Moderator Response:[BL] The entire foundation of science is based on models of one sort or another. Your claims of modelling feedbacks being impossible are simply bogus.
Models should be discussed on the "models are unreliable" myth page.
Increased evaporation is not a guarantee of increased cloud of precipitation. Your argument is overly simplistic. Cloud feedback should be discussed on this thread.
Your argument that positive feedback leads to a runaway effect is also bogus. Answered on this thread.
-
MA Rodger at 17:47 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
The pertinent graphic in scaddenp's link @131 cannot be 'hot' linked directly from CarbonBrief but it is available elsewhere online.
It does show the 1940's being as melty as say 1990 but there is no significant 80-year cycle to be seen. The more usual talk of 'cycle' is seen in Arctic temperature records but the same is also seen outside the Arctic and all across the northern hemisphere. GISTEMP zonal data suggests that up in the Arctic the 1940's were as warm as 2000 but the record 1880-on is not long enough to show the presence of any 80-year cycle. However the Berkeley Earth data for Svalbard dates back to 1800 but shows no sign of such a cycle.
And the assertion that in 2023 we are about to see the Arctic plunge back into some cold icy condition for decades is not born out by any SIE or SIV record. The future of Arctic SIE in a warming world may be one of 'difficult-to-reach' ice hanging on or it could be one of it 'going with a rush'. Take your pick. It will likely be a bit of both. But a reversal of recent declines in ice is no more than wishful thinking.
-
prove we are smart at 15:47 PM on 19 April 2023EGU2023 - Upcoming presentations in Vienna
We are putting 40,thousand,million tons of co2 into the tiny 10km space above our heads. As much as scientists explain and educate it's not changing this figure- oh yes, it's slowing down a little-apparantly!
The powerful elite-the billionairs,financiers,ceo's,politicians et all, love the staus quo.
As much as I trust peer reviewed science and this yearly conference will be enlightening for many- the fouty thousand,million tons of co2 is still increasing.
The thirty years of IPCC and its 6 yearly reports, aimed directly at govts worldwide has not been listened to-thousands of peer reviewed science FACTS are ignored.
This wonderful blog site educated me on climate science and was part of the catalyst to develop a big picture view on so much. My opinions can change but for a few years now they haven't. This British climate scientist seems to be saying the right things for me.
Is dangerous climate change not really dangerous for the 1% ?
-
scaddenp at 15:38 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
A better link for extent from 1850 is:
www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850/ Same dataset -
One Planet Only Forever at 14:52 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @126,
What is the evidence for an 80 year cycle of warm waters being brought to the Arctic?
The NASA presentation of Arctic Sea Ice Extent from 1851 to 2017 does not show an 80 year cycle. It shows a fairly significant recent decline of extent of sea ice.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:49 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert... Do you have any idea how many decades deniers have been claiming that this is all just about to flip over into a cooling phase?
Heck, I (and others) even won a bet against the climate deniers at NoTricksZone on this.
Of course, their response was, "Okay, we lost the best but now it's going to really start cooling."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:44 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
And... "Quite commonly I see statements saying that Cooks paper said the "97% of scientists believe that humans are largely (>50%) responsible for global warming" but Cooks paper category 1 clearly and unambiguously states that the figure is 1.6%."
Here you muck up pretty much everything. The Cook paper is an analysis of research papers, not scientists' opinions.
Category 1 explicitly endorses the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming, and makes quantifications.
Category 2 explicitly endorses the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming without making quantifications.
Category 3 implicitly endorses the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming.
Category 5 implicitly minimizes the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming.
Category 6 explicitly minimizes the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming without making quantifications.
Category 7 explicitly minimizes the idea that human's are the primary cause of global warming, and makes quantifications.
The level of consensus is the measure of the papers that endorse vs those that minimize.
It's that simple. A child can understand this.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:35 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
And... "Skeptics believe in the direct effect of CO2 causing an ECS of about 1.2C but reject the positive feedback theory pushing ECS to 3C and beyond."
Actually, that would be a denial position. You'd have to throw out an enormous body of research to come to such an absurd conclusion.
The direct effect from CO2 is, as you say, ~1.2°C but you can't just reject physics and say there wouldn't be feedbacks. The feedbacks are very well known.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:31 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @914... "Once again I ask, why have 3 categories lumped into the "97%" result when only one category saying 'explicit or implicit support that humans contribute to global warming'."
Think of it in terms of "endorse" vs "minimize" and think of the IPCC position being the subject being either endorsed or minimized.
Three endorse categories and 3 minimize categories.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:13 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @915... "Also I have read many of the category 1 abstracts and find it puzzling how many of them could be considered endorsing category 1."
Please provide an example.
-
Albert at 13:51 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
i think the problem was that a new Page had started.
-
Albert at 13:43 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
I have just written two posts which seem to have disappeared
Moderator Response:[BL] Two posts from yesterday that contained "Arctic" and "Arctic ice" (and nothing else) were deleted yesterday. Nothing else of yours has been deleted.
-
Albert at 13:42 PM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Looking at the graph should indicate quite clearly that there is definitely no decline since 2012 and your tabulated data also clearly shows this.
Average Arctic ice extent has also plateaud since 2012 (SII) or 2006(MASIE).
If you look at yearly averages since 1979, Arctic ice has only reduced by about 15% and as I wrote above, all this was prior to 2012.
DMI, JAXA, Bremen uni, and others all say the same.
"i would be curious to learn what you believe explains the observed Arctic Sea Ice Mass changes since 2012."
My guess is the cyclic currents that bring warm waters to the Arctic have reached the top of their cycle and are changing to a cooler mode.
Evidence seems to suggest that the cycle is around 80 years and we know that Arctic ice extent was also low around 1940.
-
Albert at 13:18 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
From Rob
"If you had bothered to read the actual paper it's explained why the figures are organized as they are."
I have read it many times and find that the paler is riddled with statistical biases and that categories 5,6 and 7 are red herrings designed to give a false sense of balance.
there is no logical reason given why the 3 categories are required other than to give a reason to have categories 5,6 and 7.
Also I have read many of the category 1 abstracts and find it puzzling how many of them could be considered endorsing category 1.
Moderator Response:[BL] ...and yet you lump categories 5, 6, and 7 together - along with categories 2 and 3 - when you calculate your irrelevant 1.6% figure. The logic behind those categories is explained in the paper, and has been explained here - you just don't like it.
-
Albert at 13:09 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Once again I ask, why have 3 categories lumped into the "97%" result when only one category saying "explicit or implicit support that humans contribute to global warming".
Again, virtually every sceptic scientist, meteorologist, geologist, etc would agree with the above statement so they will not be publishing a paper saying there is little or no anthropogenic warming.
Skeptics believe in the direct effect of CO2 causing an ECS of about 1.2C but reject the positive feedback theory pushing ECS to 3C and beyond.
So categories 5,6 and 7 are really meaningless, because of the above.
Quite commonly I see statements saying that Cooks paper said the "97% of scientists believe that humans are largely (>50%) responsible for global warming" but Cooks paper category 1 clearly and unambiguously states that the figure is 1.6%.
Moderator Response:[BL} None of the categories in the paper use the description you "quote" in your first paragraph. Making up quotes will not be tolerated, and if you continue to do so, expect to see heavy moderation of your posts.
The categories in the paper look at recent warming. That is a different question from (warming due to CO2), and if you do not understand the difference then you need to learn about it.
You are repeating your 1.6% number ignoring the criticism that has show it to be the result of an unreasonable grouping of categories 2-7..
-
Albert at 12:55 PM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
"I have linked to the journal article above, and you can scroll down and find the "Supplementary data" link. In that data, one of the files provides every single paper/abstract included in the study, and it's ranking. It's pretty trivial to read that into a spreadsheet and get totals for each group."
So why is the "64" not explicitly stated somewhere in the original paper and instead you have to find an obscure file, put into a spread sheet into comma separated columns and include a conditional statement saying if this is category "1" then increment sum.
so nobody could determine that category "1" had only 64 entries unless they knew how to download the data into a spreadsheet and do a conditional sort.
So, once again why was there no table listing the categories and theirs numbers?
Moderator Response:[BL] Your pattern of blasting many comments into a thread is forcing me to go into moderator role.
To begin, please read the Comments Policy.
As to your "question" - it took me less than an hour to accomplish the task of obtaining the data and determining the numbers in question.
You have completely ignored the comment I made about the bogosity of your "1.6%" calculation. You are trying to draw attention to a number that does not change the conclusions of the paper.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:12 AM on 19 April 2023Arctic sea ice has recovered
Albert @ 120 is doing an Arctic sea ice volume analysis using the standard "skeptic" analysis techniques that go into The Escalator:
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:04 AM on 19 April 2023There is no consensus
Albert @909 starts off by questioning the groupings in the Cook et al 2013 study, saying that he searched and could not find totals for the individual categories.
I have linked to the journal article above, and you can scroll down and find the "Supplementary data" link. In that data, one of the files provides every single paper/abstract included in the study, and it's ranking. It's pretty trivial to read that into a spreadsheet and get totals for each group. Those totals are:
1 Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% 64 2 Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise 922 3 Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it 2910 4 No Position 7970 5 Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW 54 6 Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify 15 7 Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50% 9 The paper points out that category 4 includes two groups, which need to be treated differently:
- No position (7930 papers)
- Uncertain (40 papers)
"No position" must be excluded entirely, as it is impossible to conclude a position that is not expressed in the paper's abstract. That makes a total of 4014 papers that express an opinion (explicitly or implicitly).
Given the groupings of 1-3 and 5-7, it is obvious that 1-3 share the trait of "not minimized". It is perfectly reasonable to treat "not minimized" as ">50%", when the paper does not quantify a value.
Likewise, grouping 5-7 together is the opposite: they all share the trait of "minimizes", whether they have quantified the minimization or not.
The point of the three categories is to distinguish between explicit quantification, explicit without quantification, and implicit without quantification - on both sides of the equation.
Now, what about that 1.6% number that Albert throws out? To get 1.6%, you have to pick category 1 (64 papers) and divide by 4014 (the total number that expressed an opinion, explicitly or implicitly).
So, while Albert is questioning the grouping of papers into 1-3 and 5-7, he sees no problem in grouping 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 together into one category and calling it "papers that disagree that humans caused most of the recent warming". That grouping is far less supportable than the grouping used in the paper. Categories 2 and 3 (totalling 3832 papers) clearly are not defined in such a way that you can interpret "not minimized" as "<50%".
In fact, if you only consider the papers that explicitly quantify the effect as >50% or <50%, there are only 73 papers in categories 1 and 7 - and 64 of them say >50% of recent warming is due to humans. That is 88% of the total. A far cry from Albert's 1.6%.
We can also compare categories 2 vs. 6. 98% are on the "endorses" side.
And we can compare categories 3 and 5. Again, 98% on the "endorses" side.
Either Albert has not really considered where the 1.6% value came from, or he is deliberately trying to bias the result in one direction.
As for his final claim about "skeptics" being included in the 97%, Skeptical Science has another blog post on that matter. Scroll down to the section titled "Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%".
Albert is just repeating frequently-debunked crap.
