Question; Is this your religion? Take the test.

[flogger]

You'd probably learn a bit more if you tried reading and understanding, rather than recycling these same tired old talking points and hollow rhetoric.

By all means point out where I was in error ?

The 'greenhouse effect' of water vapour and the longer-lived greenhouse gases is indisputable, and the observational evidence is very strongly consistent with the fact - demonstrable in laboratory experiments since the 19th century - that increasing greenhouse gases leads to increased long-term temperatures. Pretending that's not the case is not scepticism, it's simply living in denial

Nobody disputes the greenhouse effect however the human signature on temperature has yet to be detected much less quantified against natural background variation such is its insignificance

If I thought there was any chance of an intelligent discussion on the subject of past warmer periods, I'd attempt to have one because it's an interesting subject I wouldn't mind learning more about.

Indeed and you certainly don't want to do that because then the whole AGW hypothesis would instantly be shown up for the nonsense it always was

But sorry experience has proven that it'd mostly just be a waste of my time

No its just that I've called you out by highlighting your blinkered extremist nonsense too many times :bs

 

[Mithrae]

Nobody disputes the greenhouse effect however the human signature on temperature has yet to be detected much less quantified against natural background variation such is its insignificance

Well let's start with your critique of the four peer-reviewed studies I provided in post #148. They use a few different approaches to quantifying the relative climate contributions of different factors, from broad model-based to more precise analysis of regional variations, but they all arrive at broadly similar results within their uncertainty estimates. There's about a dozen other papers referenced by those four, but we can start with these ones and see how we go

Meehl et al, 2004 (Journal of Climate)
Stone et al, 2007 (Journal of Climate)
Lean and Rind, 2008 (Geophysical Research Letters)
Huber and Knutti, 2011 (Nature Geoscience)
Hansen, Sato and Ruedy, 2013

 

[flogger]

Well let's start with your critique of the four peer-reviewed studies I provided in post #148. They use a few different approaches to quantifying the relative climate contributions of different factors, from broad model-based to more precise analysis of regional variations, but they all arrive at broadly similar results within their uncertainty estimates. There's about a dozen other papers referenced by those four, but we can start with these ones and see how we go

Meehl et al, 2004 (Journal of Climate)
Stone et al, 2007 (Journal of Climate)
Lean and Rind, 2008 (Geophysical Research Letters)
Huber and Knutti, 2011 (Nature Geoscience)
Hansen, Sato and Ruedy, 2013

No lets see you cite the points from these studies that you feel make your case and we will proceed from there with each of them because so far I've seen nothing but the usual climate model based guesswork here ? Otherwise this is much akin to Threegoofs citing AR5 as a smokescreen

That's how I do it when referencing specific Peer reviewed material :waiting:

 

[Mithrae]

No lets see you cite the points from these studies that you feel make your case and we will proceed from there with each of them ?

That's how I do it when referencing Peer reviewed material :waiting:

Off the top of my head I think I've only ever seen you reference peer-reviewed material twice:
> A graph of Greenland ice core proxy temperatures, which you often misconstrue or misrepresent as implying global temperature trends, and
> A CSIRO study of increased vegetation in arid areas which you often or always misrepresent as being 'the only directly measurable effect of increased CO2' - clearly not having read even the summary article you link to, which shows that CO2 is recognised as the major cause of the recent 'greening' in the same manner that it is recognised as the major cause of recent warming.

I could explain what I find persuasive about those studies - even beyond the consistent peer-reviewed results of differing approaches to the issue - but why would I bother? You made the claim, that anthropogenic impact on the climate
"has yet to be detected much less quantified against natural background variation"
even though I had already provided these peer-reviewed (and one non-reviewed, but consistent) papers suggesting precisely the opposite. So either you must have had good reasons for rejecting the results of those studies, or else you were simply spouting off your own dismal ignorance of science as if it were fact.

It's obviously the latter, if you find yourself unable to coherently explain why you think those studies' conclusions are in error.

 

[flogger]

> A graph of Greenland ice core proxy temperatures, which you often misconstrue or misrepresent as implying global temperature trends,

The graph spoke for itself . You can't say on the one hand what happens in the Arctic is important one minute yet on the other dismiss it out of hand when it doesn't fit the next

> A CSIRO study of increased vegetation in arid areas which you often or always misrepresent as being 'the only directly measurable effect of increased CO2' - clearly not having read even the summary article you link to, which shows that CO2 is recognised as the major cause of the recent 'greening' in the same manner that it is recognised as the major cause of recent warming.

Well the greening is certainly there but what happened to the warming ?

I could explain what I find persuasive about those studies - even beyond the consistent peer-reviewed results of differing approaches to the issue - but why would I bother? You made the claim, that anthropogenic impact on the climate
"has yet to be detected much less quantified against natural background variation"

And that is correct as no value has yet been established for the climate sensitivity of CO2 plus a plethora of other major variables

even though I had already provided these peer-reviewed (and one non-reviewed, but consistent) papers suggesting precisely the opposite. So either you must have had good reasons for rejecting the results of those studies, or else you were simply spouting off your own dismal ignorance of science as if it were fact.

No these papers all reference non empirical GCM simulations ergo they are guesswork. Real world observations to date bear this out

It's obviously the latter, if you find yourself unable to coherently explain why you think those studies' conclusions are in error.

If I have misread them and they do not reference GCMs in order to attempt to establish their conclusions then please cite where any of them have done so ?

 

[Mithrae]

No these papers all reference non empirical GCM simulations ergo they are guesswork. Real world observations to date bear this out

Variation in solar activity has been directly observed, and the effect of variations in energy input tested in laboratory experiments. Volcanic dust clouds and aerosols have been directly observed, and their effects on the incoming or outgoing energy balance of a system tested in laboratory experiments. Human aerosol and GHG emissions have been directly observed, and their effects on the incoming or outgoing energy balance of a system tested in laboratory experiments.

Putting empirically derived information into a computer does not suddenly make it non-empirical guesswork when simulations are used to test buildings' resistance to seismic activity, or space probes' reactions to planets' gravitation, or ice cores' response to paleoclimatic temperature variations, or vegetation's response to increasing atmospheric CO2.

I wonder why it is you think that the scientists who authored these papers and the scientists who reviewed them were all wrong in thinking that simulation and comparison of known variables and uncertainties is a valid approach here, as in every other field of human endeavour?

What do you know that they don't?



I'm lying of course. I don't wonder why you think that, or what you know that the scientists don't. I reckon I've got a pretty good idea why you resort to this special pleading. When you don't like the results, out goes the reason and in comes the rhetoric.

 

[flogger]

Variation in solar activity has been directly observed, and the effect of variations in energy input tested in laboratory experiments. Volcanic dust clouds and aerosols have been directly observed, and their effects on the incoming or outgoing energy balance of a system tested in laboratory experiments. Human aerosol and GHG emissions have been directly observed, and their effects on the incoming or outgoing energy balance of a system tested in laboratory experiments.

And these sort of experiments simply do not translate into the real world due to the vast number of interactions that cannot be simulated or even estimated in the lab. If they were they wouldn't be getting it wrong

Putting empirically derived information into a computer does not suddenly make it non-empirical guesswork

It does when the values of the major variables are unknown. Even clouds and water vapour are still guesswork here

when simulations are used to test buildings' resistance to seismic activity, or space probes' reactions to planets' gravitation, or ice cores' response to paleoclimatic temperature variations, or vegetation's response to increasing atmospheric CO2

That's because they use known empirical values. There's no analogy here

I wonder why it is you think that the scientists who authored these papers and the scientists who reviewed them were all wrong in thinking that simulation and comparison of known variables and uncertainties is a valid approach here, as in every other field of human endeavour?

What do you know that they don't?

Simple. Because their guesswork bears little relationship with what is happening in the real world

I'm lying of course. I don't wonder why you think that, or what you know that the scientists don't. I reckon I've got a pretty good idea why you resort to this special pleading.

Eh ? What special pleading would that be then ? :bs

 

[Tim the plumber]

So that means you can't do it?

I guess you'd have to read it though.

I am saying that the IPCC's 5th report has a section which says how they have arrived at their figure of 1m sea level rise by 2100. I have read it. I know how to find it. I have quoted bits of it.

I am saying that Threegoofs has never, as far as I am aware, managed to quote from a peer reviewed scientific paper in a relevant way. I challenge him to do so now by showing that he can find the bit in the IPCC's 5th report which shows how they have come to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is a 1m sea level rise by 2100.

 

[Threegoofs]

I am saying that the IPCC's 5th report has a section which says how they have arrived at their figure of 1m sea level rise by 2100. I have read it. I know how to find it. I have quoted bits of it.

I am saying that Threegoofs has never, as far as I am aware, managed to quote from a peer reviewed scientific paper in a relevant way. I challenge him to do so now by showing that he can find the bit in the IPCC's 5th report which shows how they have come to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is a 1m sea level rise by 2100.

I believe I've come up with quite a few scientific papers and sources. I don't need to do your assignments and post Chapter 13.

Odd though, how you originally were talking about the human impact of sea level rise and now you're back to the mechanism.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I believe I've come up with quite a few scientific papers and sources. I don't need to do your assignments and post Chapter 13.

Odd though, how you originally were talking about the human impact of sea level rise and now you're back to the mechanism.

You have often posted links to papers. In fact it's one of your favored tactics; when you are losing a point you post as many papers as possible to deflect the other guy and hope he gives up due to the effort required to wade through such paper looking for the point you are supposedly making. You have not posted any relevant quotes from any such paper. That I take to mean that you are not actually able to digest any such paper and find the relevant bits yourself.

That the mechanism for sea level rise is not well explained in the IPCC's report is one point that you are hopelessly out of your depth in discussing such a detail of a scientific report is another. Both are very telling as to the degree of scientific credibility of the writers, that is the IPCC and you.

 

[Threegoofs]

You have often posted links to papers. In fact it's one of your favored tactics; when you are losing a point you post as many papers as possible to deflect the other guy and hope he gives up due to the effort required to wade through such paper looking for the point you are supposedly making. You have not posted any relevant quotes from any such paper. That I take to mean that you are not actually able to digest any such paper and find the relevant bits yourself.

That the mechanism for sea level rise is not well explained in the IPCC's report is one point that you are hopelessly out of your depth in discussing such a detail of a scientific report is another. Both are very telling as to the degree of scientific credibility of the writers, that is the IPCC and you.

Yes. The IPCC has no scientific credibility.... Says a guy on a message board who admits he has no formal training as a scientist or works in a scientific field.

 

[flogger]

Yes. The IPCC has no scientific credibility.... Says a guy on a message board who admits he has no formal training as a scientist or works in a scientific field.

I notice you evaded Tims task of locating and citing the section of AR5 dealing with sea level rise by 2100.

We wait with baited breath as you plumb your oft claimed much read and in depth knowledge of the chapter in question :waiting:

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

You have often posted links to papers. In fact it's one of your favored tactics; when you are losing a point you post as many papers as possible to deflect the other guy and hope he gives up due to the effort required to wade through such paper looking for the point you are supposedly making. You have not posted any relevant quotes from any such paper. That I take to mean that you are not actually able to digest any such paper and find the relevant bits yourself.

That the mechanism for sea level rise is not well explained in the IPCC's report is one point that you are hopelessly out of your depth in discussing such a detail of a scientific report is another. Both are very telling as to the degree of scientific credibility of the writers, that is the IPCC and you.

Yes. The IPCC has no scientific credibility.... Says a guy on a message board who admits he has no formal training as a scientist or works in a scientific field.

I have an A level in physics and one in maths. I don't count the one in geography as particularly scientific, nor the one in political history. (A levels are taken at 17/18 years old and are the entry examinations to university).

But in spite of this deficiency I am able to cite relevant passages from scientific papers to back up my assertions and argue my case. So that's more than you are able to do whatever your pharmacy background helps you out with.

The challenge stands.

 

[flogger]

I have an A level in physics and one in maths. I don't count the one in geography as particularly scientific, nor the one in political history. (A levels are taken at 17/18 years old and are the entry examinations to university).

But in spite of this deficiency I am able to cite relevant passages from scientific papers to back up my assertions and argue my case. So that's more than you are able to do whatever your pharmacy background helps you out with.

The challenge stands.

Read my sig Tim

 

[Threegoofs]

I have an A level in physics and one in maths. I don't count the one in geography as particularly scientific, nor the one in political history. (A levels are taken at 17/18 years old and are the entry examinations to university).

But in spite of this deficiency I am able to cite relevant passages from scientific papers to back up my assertions and argue my case. So that's more than you are able to do whatever your pharmacy background helps you out with.

The challenge stands.

Congratulations on passing your high school tests.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

You have often posted links to papers. In fact it's one of your favored tactics; when you are losing a point you post as many papers as possible to deflect the other guy and hope he gives up due to the effort required to wade through such paper looking for the point you are supposedly making. You have not posted any relevant quotes from any such paper. That I take to mean that you are not actually able to digest any such paper and find the relevant bits yourself.

That the mechanism for sea level rise is not well explained in the IPCC's report is one point that you are hopelessly out of your depth in discussing such a detail of a scientific report is another. Both are very telling as to the degree of scientific credibility of the writers, that is the IPCC and you.

Congratulations on passing your high school tests.

Any idea of a time frame for your posting of the mechanism by which the IPCC expects the sea level to rise by 1m by 2100? (Worst case scenario.)

 

[code1211]

No, its peak over the last three centuries occurred in 1958; it then declined, rose to a smaller peak in 1979 and has been declining since then.
LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

It's worth noting that your TSI graph is based on a 2000 study by Judith Lean, in which she suggests a smaller three-century increase in TSI than in Lean et al 1995 and concludes that:
Ultimate validation of the calculated spectral irradiance changes, both historically and during the solar cycle, awaits a new generation of observations. These are planned to be made by the University of Colorado's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) commencing in 2002, as part of the EOS program, and subsequently by the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).

The University of Colorado information is available from the link above and, as I noted earlier, even us amateurs can see that the TSI variation within each recent cycle is greater than the variation over the course of the last century, which obviously is not comparable to global temperature trends. In 2008, Judith Lean and David Rind analysed observed temperature trends across varying regions of the globe - estimating that some three-quarters of the temperature variations could be accounted for by their approach - and concluded that while solar variation was probably the second-greatest influence on climate over the last 100 years, it may account for as little as 0.07 degrees of the observed warming (± 0.01), and actually contributed some 0.01 degrees of cooling since 1979 (± 0.01).



I can only assume that you've never bothered to look at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index.

Spoiler

You might instead be thinking of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but that does not account for any warming trend either: It clearly follows after the global temperature trend in its 1920s upswing and 1950s downswing, and more importantly shows no long-term upwards or downwards trend in any case. The 2000 high is the same as the 1950 high, which in turn is scarcely any higher than that in 1900; the 1970 low is even lower than that in 1920. Suggesting that either the PDO or the AMO is responsible for observed temperature trends seems absurd on the face of it - though they undoubtedly have been influenced by broader regional climate shifts.

Spoiler

Of course, no-one does that. Not even the likes of Svensmark (solar/cosmic radiation) or Scafetta (AMO/NAO/planetary orbits) entirely exclude all other influences on climate trends; though it's worth noting that these two nonconventional theorists each propose entirely different major climate drivers to replace the dreaded anthropogenic influence. Obviously they can't both be correct and indeed it's hard to see why either one is likely to be.

More generally it seems all but universally accepted that variations in insolation due to solar activity and Earth's orbit are the biggest regular natural contributor to climate trends, at least on timescales less than millions of years. On very long time-scales continental drift can be a major factor, as can changes in atmospheric composition due to biological processes, and undoubtedly more irregular factors at times too (eg. meteorite impact). Other major shorter time-frame contributors are volcanic activity and variations in El Nino/Southern Oscillation patterns. But despite sometimes clear short-term impacts, most studies seem to conclude that over the course of the whole century these influences have been considerably smaller than those contributed by anthropogenic aerosols (cooling) and greenhouse gases (warming). To some extent that's because (as we saw with the the PDO and AMO) solar, volcanic, ENSO patterns and so on can reflect or contribute to both warming and cooling trends, and needn't build up any consistent long-term pattern; after producing marginally more heat from 1700-1958, as we've seen, the sun has been 'cooling' the planet since then. By contrast, increasing greenhouse gases will consistently build up more and more of a warming effect.

Meehl et al, 2004 (Journal of Climate)
Stone et al, 2007 (Journal of Climate)
Lean and Rind, 2008 (Geophysical Research Letters)
Huber and Knutti, 2011 (Nature Geoscience)
Hansen, Sato and Ruedy, 2013


The weird part of the 'reasoning' employed by many 'sceptics' is the complete inversion of these relationships: Imagining that these natural factors either must be responsible for the greater part of the long-term trends, or else they cannot be responsible for any short-term trends (ie, the last decade's pause).

The various TSI Charts that you linked to are interesting.

Do know why the Maunder Minimum in all of the Charts looks like it bottoms out on the scales used? From the view point of this rank amateur it seems like there should be some vacillation of the readings at that low level even if it's not very wide. Is that as cold as it gets?

All of the charts refer to that period as the Maunder Minimum and in one of the papers you linked, refers to the most recent decades as the Modern Maximum. The whole scale seems to encompass a very few numbers. It seems as if this should be further delineated to reflect differences. That aside, though, the Sun seems to have warmed to a level not seen in centuries and now is either in a plateau or decline.

If the growth of the grass in my yard is any indicator, this is not a good thing for crop growth. We are about a couple/three weeks behind the greening of a couple years ago.

Regarding the 60 year cycle, I saw what looked like a 60 year cycle in the GISS land sea chart that Goofs was posting and then saw that paper from Scaffetta. There are several idea on the 60 year cycle that can be found by googling 60 year climate cycle.

Especially in view of the climate stall noted by Hansen and others in the paper from him that you linked to, the rise of CO2 is not dominating the climate system. Controlling the emissions of CO2 may be a good idea for other reasons, but it does not seem like the tool we can use to control and direct the climate.

 

[flogger]

Any idea of a time frame for your posting of the mechanism by which the IPCC expects the sea level to rise by 1m by 2100? (Worst case scenario.)

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one

 

[Threegoofs]

Any idea of a time frame for your posting of the mechanism by which the IPCC expects the sea level to rise by 1m by 2100? (Worst case scenario.)

Again....have you not read it?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Any idea of a time frame for your posting of the mechanism by which the IPCC expects the sea level to rise by 1m by 2100? (Worst case scenario.)

Again....have you not read it?

Well, I have but I'm waiting for evidence that you are capable of reading any scientific paper and gaining useful information out of it.

 

[code1211]

That would be why they project an overall slight increase in the Antarctic ice mass in many scenarios, at least for the next century. I noticed that glancing at your IPCC thread one of the earlier times you linked to it, where you (incorrectly) claimed "Worst case scenario; 239mm" from Table 13.9. Looking again, it seems that even in the high-end scenario the Greenland ice sheet is projected to contribute as little as 2-9cm to sea level increase by 2100. By my very rough calculations that would require melting about 0.25-1.3% of the Greenland ice sheet. On what scientific basis did you conclude that this IPCC estimate is "hopelessly unscientific"?



Yes, as I've said twice now there certainly are pro-AGW extremists or alarmists, just as there are for the opposing viewpoint. So is that what you wanted out of this thread? For pro-AGW types to post and ridicule the most absurd conspiracy theories promoted by Flogger, the most laughably false information posted by Code and the most refined blog-search and copy-paste skills demonstrated by Jack Hays? Or did you want to see pro-AGW types coming to grips with some more reasonable anti-AGW arguments?

Obviously not the latter, if the "the best you can manage" is caricature 20m sea level rises.



So in light of that, here is my presentation of the anti-AGW position:

> This graph of ocean temperatures in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific shows that global ocean temperatures haven't risen (Code)

You mentioned me only once. My interest in the data from the ARGO Buoys is that it is the first data set that stands even a chance of collecting a representative body of data and that it differs so much from what came before and from what the experts predicted it would show.

The chart you reference was one that grabbed data from a particular part of the range of data. We have previously discussed my rookie stays in this study. More proof.

My interest in this does not mean that I am proclaiming myself to be expert in anything. It does mean that I look at those who DO proclaim themselves to be expert in this particular discipline and question their conclusions, predictions and therefore their reliability. I do not question the motivations of the scientists in whole, but i am confused that, when the real world does no match their assumptions on the temperature of the ocean, they change the measuring approach to one of heat content rather than temperature.

To the uninitiated such as me, this seems unusual. I would have thought they would maintain the temperature data since they need to collect it to calculate the Heat Content and then perhaps publish both.

In business, calculating performance based on EBIT, EBITDA or after tax profit are all normal and usual accounting practices, but comparing one to the other is not possible without a very clear definition of what is being changed to arrive at the calculation. Simply converting from one to the other is not useful in comparing year over year performance to create a business plan..

Global Change Analysis

 

[code1211]

Short of going out and personally measuring solar irradiance, temperature trends, GHG concentrations and so on over extended periods, analysing ice cores and other proxies for paleoclimate information etc. etc., we are all essentially appealing to authorities. Everyone, including all scientists, needs to rely on people who know stuff that they personally do not.

So the question is who to rely on; how to ensure higher levels of accuracy and objectivity in the 'authorities' we depend on. That's what peer review and scientific scepticism is supposed to accomplish. Of course it's not infallible. Nothing is. But for every example in the past century in which a considered scientific consensus has been proven substantially wrong, there are dozens in which the theories have (so far) largely stood the test of time - though I'd be surprised if any theory has not undergone some refinement or shifts in interpretation.

Where AGW 'sceptics' tend to go wrong (those more inclined towards rhetoric than learning, at least) is in thinking that "everything is open to question" means that some novel or not-so-novel fringe theory is just as good a bet as the 'consensus' arrived at over the course of a century (particularly the last four decades). The more absurd propagandists are those who dismiss that painstakingly developed consensus as an 'orthodoxy' :doh (And I'll leave it to the imagination how best to describe the ones who dismiss it as a political conspiracy!)

The problem(s) I have with the experts all agreeing with each other so passionately is that they are all in the end wrong.

I don't pretend to know exactly what they are doing or how, but they are wrong and there has to be a reason for it.

Perhaps they are all charlatans who are enjoying a joke on the rest of us and get together at regularly scheduled meetings and chuckle about the rubes they continue to fool.

Perhaps they are unable to accurately quantify the individual impacts of the myriad influences on climate and their combined and feed back effects.

Perhaps they are directed to examine the issue in a way that excludes various vital influences that limit their examinations of possibilities.

Perhaps they simply don't know and are just offering up their best guesses.

The simple fact, though, is that they are not correct.

 

[code1211]

I haven't found that to be the case. Based on Wikipedia..

Dr. Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1983 until he retired in 2013, and a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

Dr. Judith Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.

Dr. Roy Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, and has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. John Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the Alabama state climatologist, best known for developing the UAH satellite temperature record alongside Roy Spencer.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the ACRIM Lab group and an adjunct assistant professor in the physics department at Duke University.

Dr. Henrik Svensmark is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen.

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of DTU space and co-author of many of Svensmark's papers.

Dr. Fred Singer is emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, author or editor of a number of anti-AGW books and associate of the Heartland Institute.

Dr. Craig Idso is the founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

I don't think I've yet noticed any prominent sceptical scientists who are not either employed in standard climate-related scientific roles, or finding some other way to make a living out of their interests. Who did you have in mind?



Even the test of time doesn't prove a scientific theory. But given all the interest and research which has gone into climate science over recent decades, confidence in the fact that human GHG emissions are significantly impacting the climate is by now above a 95% threshold. The remaining questions, as you noted earlier, concern how much of an impact we've had and are likely to have, and what to do about it. On that score the 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius estimated range for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations is above a 66% threshold (assessed by the IPCC as likely with high confidence), while sensitivities below 1 degree or above 7 degrees are extremely unlikely (less than 5%).



There are undoubtedly reasonable arguments for a climate sensitivity below 2 degrees, just as there are undoubtedly reasonable arguments for a climate sensitivity above 3 degrees. That's why - to avoid cherry-picking and to minimise individual scientists' biases - a comprehensive overview and assessment of the scientific literature is important to keep perspective. It's a mistake (as some folk do) to assume that the 'truth' must be in the middle of the IPCC range, and of course even more of a mistake to emphasise only the highest-end, scariest results.

But even on the lower end, if we're on track to double CO2 concentrations within 70 years we'd be looking at temperature increases of 1 degree above current levels by the end of the century. If that were the case (though of course there is no great confidence that higher estimates aren't) there'd still be every reason to acknowledge the issue and take modest steps to slow down the curve of emissions increases. Instead, most if not all folk who identify their views as being contrary to the consensus seem to oppose any action to reduce emissions. It gives every impression of being a political objection, rather than scientific.

Any reduction is a political consideration.

Pollution has been radically reduced in the USA as an example, but is being dramatically increased in developing nations.

No amount of reduction of human influence on nature by Americans on Federally controlled US lands will reduce the emissions of CO2 by China and India.

 

[code1211]

Interesting example. The reduction in stroke and MI has NOT been attributed to high blood pressure alone by ANY expert I have seen... and this is an area I have been intimately involved in for 20 years.

Its well known that statins are having a significant impact, as well as better control of diabetes and in the case of MI, much better technology when it comes to management.

So the general thoughts are that it is multifactorial, and the ASCOT study you posted hasnt really changed a thing... because multiple other studies and epidemiological evidence tells us whats happening.

So the authorities here are generally spot on.. as they are in the case of AGW.

So your assertion is that a correct diagnosis of heart disease justifies faith in AGW Science that is always wrong.

Interesting piece of propagandistic logic there.

 

[code1211]

No, I'm just saying that man's influence in climate change is real and it is powerful.
The world has gone through a lot of climate events and changes over MILLIONS OF YEARS. The last ice age was tens of thousands of years ago and the next one will be tens of thousands of years from now. That's what the planet does, it self-regulates itself. However, we, humanity, through our collective activity have messed with the balance and we need to find a way to make it all good for the planet and by doing that ,for ourselves.

You used the term "self-regulates".

I think a more accurate assessment is that crap happens. Self regulation implies a design or a plan.

The climate is as much, or more, a result of extraterrestrial as terrestrial influences. The environment locally and globally responds to changes that result from these influences.

If there is more of anything to eat, more eaters of that thing will be supported. It may seem like the eaters just appear, but they are attracted and thrive until the food goes away.