What does the American Association for the Advancement of Science say about global warming?

[flogger]

In another thread, one of our deniers said that he “had access” to the “journal” magazine called “Science”, which is published by the AAAS as cited in the title to this thread, so since he basically cited that organization, I thought I would see what are their thoughts about global warming, to wit:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”

What is it that you want and why by achieving it (Were it even remotely possible) would the world currently be in a better place than it is today ..... nor in the next 100 years ?

 

[PoS]

Standard denier talking point. *YAWN*

Standard climate cultist fallacy . Yawn.

It is precisely because of these changes that we know a lot more about how NATURAL FORCINGS WORK in the absence of human activities.

This is how we know that the last 50 years or so of warming have likely been DOMINATED NOT BY NATURAL FORCINGS but by something else. That something else is human activity.

Where is your proof that this something else is human activity? And where is your proof that the changing climate would be catastrophic to us?

You all keep talking big, but in the end its just hot air.

Yes, climate has always changed. It always took centuries for the changes to happen and animals evolved along the way.
Changes that used to take many centuries now happen in a generation or two. And we're responsible for that.

How do you know this? The change in temp over the last 50 years has been around 1 degrees, thats very minuscule compared to the amount of CO2 we've been putting out (which by itself is minuscule to the amount of carbon on the ground).

 

[istodolez]

Where is your proof that this something else is human activity? And where is your proof that the changing climate would be catastrophic to us?

You all keep talking big, but in the end its just hot air.

A good place start is with the IPCC (I know you probably put on your tin foil hat at the mention of the UN, but if you actually READ parts of it you'll see it is based on solid, independent peer reviewed science.)

Of course if the IPCC is not to your liking you could pick up literally any book on earth system science, climate or atmospheric-oceanic science and read about the science. It's been published pretty consistently over the last 40 years. It's easy to find. Do you know what a LIBRARY is? Yeah, you can go there.

OR, if you are REALLY BRAVE you could take a science class.

 

[longview]

OK, for the umpteenth time let me tell you what people who have actual degrees in geology think:

YES Earth's climate has changed! Even before humans!

It is precisely because of these changes that we know a lot more about how NATURAL FORCINGS WORK in the absence of human activities.

This is how we know that the last 50 years or so of warming have likely been DOMINATED NOT BY NATURAL FORCINGS but by something else. That something else is human activity.

So good for you! You figured out what we teach sophomore geology majors! Woo Hoo! Now learn what that information tells us!!!!

BUT!, The observed warming does not translate into the predicted catastrophic warming requiring large amounts of positive feedbacks.
In addition, while we are fairly certain that CO2 is responsible for much of the warming since 1978,
it's attribution is found by subtracting out all the other know causes of warming, and attributing what remains.
This is reasonable, but limited to the accuracy of the other known causes of warming.
How solar insolation has changed since pre industrial times, is largely unknown, with series only going back to the 1950's.
Does an increase in cloud cover cause warming or cooling, ect?

 

[istodolez]

BUT!, The observed warming does not translate into the predicted catastrophic warming requiring large amounts of positive feedbacks.

So we're back to the tricky use of the word "catastrophic", eh?

In addition, while we are fairly certain that CO2 is responsible for much of the warming since 1978,
it's attribution is found by subtracting out all the other know causes of warming, and attributing what remains.

Why is that a problem? (I don't believe it is as simple as that, but I'm curious why it is a problem. If you have 5 factors and you subtract out 4 of them you are left with the remaining factor).

How solar insolation has changed since pre industrial times, is largely unknown, with series only going back to the 1950's.
Does an increase in cloud cover cause warming or cooling, ect?

This is nothing more than throwing questions against the wall and seeing what sticks. It's doubt for doubt's sake. That's fine insofar as it allows for the development of better answers but it isn't an end in and of itself.

You are dangerously close to the epistemological atomic bomb. That's what I call it when someone tries to ask so many questions that you realize that we can know NOTHING at all. This is the extent of Hume's empiricism. You may be able to see that flicking the switch is when the light comes on but you cannot prove that it isn't just random chance operating such that every time you flick the switch the light comes on. So you trace the wires but even THEN it could be that there's some unknown factor that is responsible for the light coming on and it is independent of the switch altogether.

I call it the Epistemological Atomic Bomb because it destroys utterly our ability to know anything. EVEN YOUR POINTS. If we can know NOTHING then your points fall as well. The epistemological atomic bomb takes out everything.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In another thread, one of our deniers said that he “had access” to the “journal” magazine called “Science”, which is published by the AAAS as cited in the title to this thread, so since he basically cited that organization, I thought I would see what are their thoughts about global warming, to wit:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”

Here is what they say:

​

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.​

​

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.​

​

AAAS Reaffirms Statement on Climate Change | American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

www.aaas.org

 

[longview]

So we're back to the tricky use of the word "catastrophic", eh?



Why is that a problem? (I don't believe it is as simple as that, but I'm curious why it is a problem. If you have 5 factors and you subtract out 4 of them you are left with the remaining factor).

The problem with the subtractive method, at least where AGW is concerned, is that as we learn more and more
about the different processes that cause warming, then less and less can be attributable to CO2 forcing and feedbacks.
Depending on the data set, total warming since the pre 1900 average, is between 1 and 1.2 C,
Wood For Trees
with between .2 and .3C being considered mostly natural, leaving between .7 and 1C of unknown.
Any additional sources of warming will only subtract further from the CO2 attribution.

 

[istodolez]

The problem with the subtractive method, at least where AGW is concerned, is that as we learn more and more
about the different processes that cause warming, then less and less can be attributable to CO2 forcing and feedbacks.

Interestingly that hasn't proven to be a problem for the vast majority of the experts in the field. That is a curiosity I suppose. It is a problem for you but the experts don't seem to see it that way.

 

[istodolez]

Here is what they say:

​

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.​

​

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.​

​

AAAS Reaffirms Statement on Climate Change | American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

www.aaas.org

Hey, Lord, kudos on quickly editing out the word "lying". It was pretty obvious to you, wasn't it, that yet again you are going to accuse others of lying.

See? It's not so hard! You can disagree with someone without resorting to your tried and true approach of simply decreeing them to be liars!

Good on ya!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hey, Lord, kudos on quickly editing out the word "lying". It was pretty obvious to you, wasn't it, that yet again you are going to accuse others of lying.

See? It's not so hard! You can disagree with someone without resorting to your tried and true approach of simply decreeing them to be liars!

Good on ya!

Notice that the "what we know" link doesn't claim any quantitative facts. At first I thought it was a fraud, because it was not the same as the AAAS statement. Plus, the first two links in the 5th post don't work. It appears he was quoting some lying blogger, when I had just yesterday looked it up and it didn't match.

Notice there still isn't anything scary about what it says.

 

[istodolez]

Notice that the "what we know" link doesn't claim any quantitative facts. At first I thought it was a fraud

"fraud". LOL.

Pretty loaded and biased term there. Thank goodness you aren't a biased partisan like you complain about others being.

 

[Manc Skipper]

 

[longview]

Interestingly that hasn't proven to be a problem for the vast majority of the experts in the field. That is a curiosity I suppose. It is a problem for you but the experts don't seem to see it that way.

They perhaps have not considered all the implication of the methodology.
I think it is the limitation that will eventually cause the demise of the concept of AGW as a basis of concern.

 

[mrjurrs]

100% absolutely right it should be. The problem lies in what action should be taken. Let's look at the Dems plan in Carbon Tax which is literally a gateway drug to tax all of us for breathing. And don't think they won't do it. I live in the City of Chicago where these scumbag sons of bitches have managed to actually tax a tax...so breathing is a fresh and viable option for these ****ers....

1. Dems are going to give billions of dollars to New Energy (solar, wind, et al)
2. Dems are going to take billions of dollars from Old Energy (oil, coal, et al)
3. Dems are going to increase regulatory burdens, very expensive regulatory burdens on our companies giving our overseas competitors a significant advantage.
4. Doing all this is so that Dems can phase out Old Energy completely, bankrupt them, send them to the poor house, end their existence.

Now not even getting into the ramifications of labor, oil workers and coal miners aren't such because they're inclined to sit behind a desk and code, nor would they have the necessary credentials or skills required to take on equal leveled positions in New Energy -- not even getting into that...

We're also not going to get into the billions upon billions of dollars invested in equipment, technology, land, development, research, exploration et al, nor are we going to get into the trillions of down stream dollars that come from products made from petroleum -- ignore that too

While we're at it lets just forget the treaties in which American companies are hamstrung all the while allowing the real polluters of the globe, i.e China, India to take there sweet ass time and make a few more trillion off polluting the earth. -- we won't mention that either...

So taking in to account what we must and ignoring what we must -- the ability for New Energy to meet the demands both current and expected is questionable at best. As is its costs, efficacy in pollution reduction, the unknown biohazards of its own that will be created and on top of all that it will take decades and trillions to implement.

And people wonder why there is political gridlock?

Come up with a plan, a real ****ing plan that addresses what I said to ignore and what I pointed out and then we can get somewhere. I can come up with the plan, it's not that hard, real easy in fact but it won't get done because some scumbag politician on either side won't be getting their cut.

It is obvious you don't understand how a carbon tax works. Were you this fired up when the buggy whip industry died out?

 

[mrjurrs]

You know what bothers me? YOUR side's condescension! Some of us have doctorates in earth science and decades of experience in the physical sciences, so YEAH we might have more appreciation of the data!

As to your "jobs tomorrow/food today" dialectic: speaking as someone who has worked on alternative fuels in one postdoc and who has spent YEARS innovating the lab (>15 patents and counting) I can tell you that people are doing a lot of work ON YOUR BEHALF. Those jobs of tomorrow will HAVE to come. Oh yeah and "food today"? Interesting you should say that. My first postdoc was with the USDA. Agriculture is pretty key to our ability to feed ourselves. Do you have a clue what climate change will do to our agricultural infrastructure? Do you know where most of your table vegetables come from? Do you know how they get water there? Just any of it? What happens if weather patterns change decreasing snowfall in the Sierrra's? How do you think that will affect you personally? (HINT: It will affect you VERY VERY VERY personally, no matter where in the US you live.)

Don't denigrate education or expertise.

Thank you.
" Simulation based on climate data from 1971 to 2006 indicated that Indonesia agricultural production is more sensitive to temperature increase rather than rainfall decrease. A combination of these two climate components has significant impact on the country’s food balance by 2050. It is estimated that the deficit will be 90 million tons of husked rice by 2050."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yusman-Syaukat-3/publication/268429607_THE_IMPACT_OF_CLIMATE_CHANGE_ON_FOOD_PRODUCTION_AND_SECURITY_AND_ITS_ADAPTATION_PROGRAMS_IN_INDONESIA/links/54ead7750cf2f7aa4d5810a9/THE-IMPACT-OF-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ON-FOOD-PRODUCTION-AND-SECURITY-AND-ITS-ADAPTATION-PROGRAMS-IN-INDONESIA.pdf

 

[istodolez]

They perhaps have not considered all the implication of the methodology.

That is an interesting suggestion. So you think it likely that countless thousands of independent professionals over the past 50 years haven't really got their methodology down?

I think it is the limitation that will eventually cause the demise of the concept of AGW as a basis of concern.

It would seem unlikely in the extreme that thousands upon thousands of independent professionals over the course of nearly half a century could be so disastrously wrong.

Again I am reminded of the various debates on Creationism vs Evolution I've been involved in. There is a serious, heart-felt wish that all the science was wrong, no matter how solid it has proven to be among the professionals.

 

[longview]

Thank you.
" Simulation based on climate data from 1971 to 2006 indicated that Indonesia agricultural production is more sensitive to temperature increase rather than rainfall decrease. A combination of these two climate components has significant impact on the country’s food balance by 2050. It is estimated that the deficit will be 90 million tons of husked rice by 2050."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yusman-Syaukat-3/publication/268429607_THE_IMPACT_OF_CLIMATE_CHANGE_ON_FOOD_PRODUCTION_AND_SECURITY_AND_ITS_ADAPTATION_PROGRAMS_IN_INDONESIA/links/54ead7750cf2f7aa4d5810a9/THE-IMPACT-OF-CLIMATE-CHANGE-ON-FOOD-PRODUCTION-AND-SECURITY-AND-ITS-ADAPTATION-PROGRAMS-IN-INDONESIA.pdf

That is based on a 2C increase by 2050.
" Decrease in crop productions due to a 2C increase in temperature is 7 to 22 times higher than those of a 246 mm decrease in rainfall, indicating that change in temperature has more significant impact on crop production than that of declining in rainfall "
To talk about an additional 2C increase in 30 years, we have to consider that temperatures in that zone
have only increased .87C in the last 120 years,
GISS Zones

 

[longview]

That is an interesting suggestion. So you think it likely that countless thousands of independent professionals over the past 50 years haven't really got their methodology down?



It would seem unlikely in the extreme that thousands upon thousands of independent professionals over the course of nearly half a century could be so disastrously wrong.

Again I am reminded of the various debates on Creationism vs Evolution I've been involved in. There is a serious, heart-felt wish that all the science was wrong, no matter how solid it has proven to be among the professionals.

The methodology is ok, but taking out to a conclusion, not so much.

 

[istodolez]

The methodology is ok, but taking out to a conclusion, not so much.

That sounds like moving the goalposts. You just said there might be issues with the methodology. But to move it out to the "conclusions" is even more tenuous.

Is the goal simply to bring up doubt for doubt's sake?

I'm fascinated by your point. You take a super-simplified view of a rather complex topic and then decree that the professionals are doing something wrong because they don't arrive at the same conclusions you do. I've done that and I've been quickly corrected by the professionals who inform me of the detail I was lacking in my understanding of the topic. Has this ever happened to you?

I'm not saying you are ipso facto wrong, just that if your conclusions differ dramatically from the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent highly skilled professionals who have dedicated their careers to this topic and you somehow draw the conclusion it is THEIR potential error? That's a pretty brave position. Since I'm not qualified to call strikes and balls in this game I'm going to go with Ockham and suggest that it is unlikely that your position is the correct one.

Thankfully there IS a way to determine which is the right path. Submit for peer review.

 

[Mashmont]

In another thread, one of our deniers said that he “had access” to the “journal” magazine called “Science”, which is published by the AAAS as cited in the title to this thread, so since he basically cited that organization, I thought I would see what are their thoughts about global warming, to wit:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”

Oppose the global warming scam; lose your funding. Simple as that. Has zero to do with science or the scientific method.

 

[watsup]

Oppose the global warming scam; lose your funding. Simple as that. Has zero to do with science or the scientific method.

Conspiracy theory/denier talking point.

 

[Mashmont]

Conspiracy theory/denier talking point.

Yeah, except not all or even most sicentists go along with this fraud.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yeah, except not all or even most sicentists go along with this fraud.

Science is what's there, even when you don't believe it.

 

[Mashmont]

Science is what's there, even when you don't believe it.

Predicting global warming is as scientific as predicting spins of the roulette wheel.

 

[watsup]

Yeah, except not all or even most sicentists go along with this fraud.

Double-down on conspiracy/denier talking points.