An example of the consensus in science that AGW is real.

[Threegoofs]

Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.

 

[mak2]

I can open the link but the pages of what it opens is blank. Is it just me? I would kinda like to read this.

Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.

 

[Threegoofs]

I can open the link but the pages of what it opens is blank. Is it just me? I would kinda like to read this.

Try www.sciencemag.org

It has full text for some of the articles, abstracts for all.

 

[mak2]

Thansk

Try Science

It has full text for some of the articles, abstracts for all.

 

[Threegoofs]

Also, please note that this is a single example of many, many examples. The major scientific organizations often have position statements verifying the issue of AGW on their websites. Most papers regarding climate will start with the assumption that the reader understands this is NOT a controversial issue.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.

Correct. They don't quantify it either.

They do say "2 C" and "CO2," but they don't say CO2 will cause a 2 C increase. They said fossil fuels.

Soot on ice......

Most of us don't have a problem with the material like this, even though it is suggestive. It's how people put on those AGW colored glasses and preach the doom and gloom and anthropogenic evil.

 

[code1211]

Heres a nice example from the journal Science. For those who dont know, Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the worlds largest general science society. Its about the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, about on par with what the Royal Society in England was in the 19th century, and being elected as a fellow in the Society is one of the highest honors you can get in a scientific career. Science is one of the top interdisciplinary journals in the world, along with Nature.

This month they have a special issue on climate change.

The initial introductory paragraph says:

Once and Future Climate Change

ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW A PART OF OUR REALITY. EVEN THE MOST
optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that
mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this
century and that CO2
emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of
years. A key goal of current research is to predict how these changes will affect
global ecosystems and the human population that depends on them. This special
section of
Science
focuses on the current state of knowledge about the effects of
climate change on natural systems, with particular emphasis on how knowledge
of the past is helping us to understand potential biological impacts and improve
predictive power.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/472.full.pdf

Notice. This paragraph does not mention that this is in any way controversial. It doesnt use qualifiers, it straight out says that CO2 emissions will affect the climate. Period. This is what a consensus means. Its a commonly understood fact by all. If fact, its so strong, that an entire Science issue (an interdisciplinary journal) has been devoted to it. Nature, another journal, actually has an entire subjournal called Nature Climate Change

I cant think of any clearer evidence of consensus than this. Note the date - this came out today, August 2nd, 2013. So pretending that things are somehow 'changing' is wrong. Its consensus as of this afternoon.

Well, we know that they are currently predicting that the temperature will increase by about two degrees in the next 87 years. I'm not sure they predicted the current temperature decline. Did they?

Have they made any previous predictions on temperature that we might check to see if they know what they are doing?

Just wondering why they have all agreed and on what.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well, we know that they are currently predicting that the temperature will increase by about two degrees in the next 87 years. I'm not sure they predicted the current temperature decline. Did they?

Have they made any previous predictions on temperature that we might check to see if they know what they are doing?

Just wondering why they have all agreed and on what.

I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.

 

[code1211]

I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.

I'm only asking for the information that will reveal their expertise.

If there is no information that qualifies them as expert on anything, I will accept that they are renowned in the world of AGW Science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I thought no one says that it isnt getting warmer. Oh, right. Thats denier #2. You are going with the Denier #1 argument.

Thanks for totally missing the entire point of the post, though. I knew it would be too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle.

Do you ever have a point?

When it comes to future temperatures, I have said it can go either way from here, depending on what the sun does.

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you ever have a point?

Yes. I encourage you to have someone read you the original post.

 

[Threegoofs]

Correct. They don't quantify it either.

They do say "2 C" and "CO2," but they don't say CO2 will cause a 2 C increase. They said fossil fuels.

Soot on ice......

Most of us don't have a problem with the material like this, even though it is suggestive. It's how people put on those AGW colored glasses and preach the doom and gloom and anthropogenic evil.

Seems to me that if 'soot on ice' (aka albedo) was important, they might have highlighted that in one of the articles.

 

[code1211]

Do you ever have a point?

When it comes to future temperatures, I have said it can go either way from here, depending on what the sun does.

By now you should have realized that if the Sun were extinguished tomorrow with CO2 already at these fatal high levels, we would warm to a point at which we were as warm as Venus is today.

Have you learned nothing from the IPCC?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes. I encourage you to have someone read you the original post.

I understood it just fine. It's obvious you don't see the word games these people play.

1) The "most optimistic" estimates are that the temperature will increase by two degrees over the next 87 years.

2) It says that CO2 will affect climate for thousands of years.

3) they say they the key goal will focus on how these changes will affect the ecosystem.

4) The rest talks about the 11 stories and revies, but no mention of CO2. only climate.


What do these mean:

1) What are lesser optiomistiocs estimates? They don't say. Do they. This leaves this wide open.

2) Yes. CO2 affects climate, at any modern levels. However, the slope of change is pretty small.

3) They are stating two separate issues. CO2, and temperature.

4) Are you going to pay for our subscriptions so we can read these 11 articles?

Now of these 11 articles, please tell us. How many talk about CO2 as a primary cause?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Seems to me that if 'soot on ice' (aka albedo) was important, they might have highlighted that in one of the articles.

OK, find the article for us that doesn't require buying their subscription please.

At least tell us which one. I can search by title.

 

[Lord of Planar]

By now you should have realized that if the Sun were extinguished tomorrow with CO2 already at these fatal high levels, we would warm to a point at which we were as warm as Venus is today.

Have you learned nothing from the IPCC?

Yes, i know that's the color of the glasses they must wear at their prayer meets. I just don't have such blind faith.

 

[Threegoofs]

OK, find the article for us that doesn't require buying their subscription please.

At least tell us which one. I can search by title.

Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.

You don't have to buy a subscription. You may have to walk to a University library though.

That's the current sad state of academic publication these days.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.

You don't have to buy a subscription. You may have to walk to a University library though.

That's the current sad state of academic publication these days.

Soot being the primary cause of AGW is my claim. It is based on the fact it does warm more than previously claimed, even acknowledged by the IPCC. Also that CO2 is proving not to provide the amount of warming previously claimed.

I will remind you once again that the scientific community is often wrong, and that I will let the future's history to prove me correct.

Ptolemy's Earth centered system was the scientific belief for about 1,400 years until Copernicus came along.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Find the article that DOESNT say soot is a primary cause of AGW? all of them, unless youve managed to publish something.

Soot being the primary cause of AGW is my claim. It is based on the fact it does warm more than previously claimed, even acknowledged by the IPCC. Also that CO2 is proving not to provide the amount of warming previously claimed.

Consider that even James Hansen has claims of higher BC and solar than the IPCC. Here's an interesting paper:

Trends of measured climate forcing agents

Please look at figure 1, and the reality that CO2 isn't causing the forcing claimed, as supported by temperatures lower than all the alarmist predictions. I'd say I have a real solid chance in being correct!

 

[KLATTU]

Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.

 

[mak2]

Facts and scientific data have a liberal bias.

Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. Thus, this is just another echo chamber where warmists tell each other how right they are.

Well yeah, because Conservatives still argue "evolution is 'just a theory'" and argue for creationism. I guess when you sink that low in the intellectual field(s)...

 

[KLATTU]

On a related d note. The congressman from around here, Rush Holt,
is adored by the warmist crowd and the liberal illuminati because he's a scientist.

Here's an exerpt from his website.

U.S. Senate candidate Rush Holt said his claim made Monday that “millions will die” if something isn’t done to address global warming was reality, not hyperbole.

“I think it’s no exaggeration at all to say that millions will die. And in fact there’s pretty good evidence that millions already have died because of climate change,” Holt, a congressman from central New Jersey who’s seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said in a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting this morning.

Millions have already died because of climate change. No, he really said that.
{CUE LAugh track}
Really- how low can you guys sink?
And you wonder why you are getting your talis kicked on this issue.

SQUAWK....... " 90% of Scientist agree' ..............SQUAWKKKK " Consensus...." SQUAWWWWWWWK

 

[mak2]

You have a link? Sounds interesting.

On a related d note. The congressman from around here, Rush Holt,
is adored by the warmist crowd and the liberal illuminati because he's a scientist.

Here's an exerpt from his website.

U.S. Senate candidate Rush Holt said his claim made Monday that “millions will die” if something isn’t done to address global warming was reality, not hyperbole.

“I think it’s no exaggeration at all to say that millions will die. And in fact there’s pretty good evidence that millions already have died because of climate change,” Holt, a congressman from central New Jersey who’s seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, said in a Star-Ledger editorial board meeting this morning.

Millions have already died because of climate change. No, he really said that.
{CUE LAugh track}
Really- how low can you guys sink?
And you wonder why you are getting your talis kicked on this issue.

SQUAWK....... " 90% of Scientist agree' ..............SQUAWKKKK " Consensus...." SQUAWWWWWWWK

 

[Threegoofs]

Science and Nature both have a strong liberal bias. .

Otherwise known as "reality".