Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

[mogur]

Where are you getting that Richard Tol quote?

Sorry, it is behind a paywall. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
Non-paywall quotations include-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2180
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Resources-links-documenting-Tol-24-errors.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/04/the-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-paper.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=m...that the consensus is indeed correct.&f=false
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/climate-for-whom-the-bell-tols.php
https://conflictresolutionpro.wordp...better-understanding-and-focus-avoid-adverbs/

Of course, you could have simply googled it yourself.

Sorry if I also flagged what I thought was your misspelling. My bad.

 

[mogur]

Nobody is seriously saying that there isn't an anthropogenic element to warming, it is the degree that is the crucial factor. I agree with luke warmers like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson that the effect is minor. Most serious scientists now agree that the equiibrium climate sensitivity value (ECS) for CO2 is around 1.2K for a doubling in concentration. Although the relationship is not linear but logarithmic, hence a subsequent doubling will have a far more attenuated effect.

The equation used by the IPCC is

which is the classic Arrhenius relationship with a value for alpha of 5.35. Here C is carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C[SUB]0[/SUB] denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square metre. Nobody has provided any reliable evidence that the positive feedbacks postulated by climate alarmists in fact exist outside of computer models.

In an area of science that is relatively new, models are the cornerstone of good science. They attempt to quantify reality and describe the past and present state of knowledge. But the true value of an hypothesis is its predictive value. Many different models can be hypothesized that fit the current and past state of knowledge about AGW, but only those that succeed in matching (within reasonable margins of error) future trends are not cast aside. The fact that many, many models that have been proposed in the past and are now shown to be invalid are cast aside and those models that were shown to be predictive are retained, is not evidence of the futility of this process. Although seemingly messy, it is often pounced upon by denialists as evidence that modeling is not real science. It is most emphatically is real science. It allows us to decide which hypotheses should be disregarded and which particular ones should be retained until better models supplant them.

Again, due to the relative infancy of this area of science, its complexity, and the chaotic nature of weather and short-term climate, many models have been proposed and most have been discarded. But that is certainly not reason to abandon the scientific method. And we do have a few decades under our belt now, and the models will continue to improve our understanding.

 

[Irish]

I think there is an impact but the left has hijacked it and used it to scare and regulate.

Notice how leftists keep changing language? First it was global cooling in th 60s. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate crisis. Now its "climate change."

Just like leftistism used to be marxism, them communism, then socialism, then modern liberalism, now progressivism. They keep changing the language to keep their useful idiot voting block in the dark. Once they catch on to their scams, they quickly change their name and say 'that's not us, we are progressives not socialists!"


Wonder what they will change it to next? Advacestises. Globalists? Free giver-awayers? Time will tell.

 

[cancel2 2022]

In an area of science that is relatively new, models are the cornerstone of good science. They attempt to quantify reality and describe the past and present state of knowledge. But the true value of an hypothesis is its predictive value. Many different models can be hypothesized that fit the current and past state of knowledge about AGW, but only those that succeed in matching (within reasonable margins of error) future trends are not cast aside. The fact that many, many models that have been proposed in the past and are now shown to be invalid are cast aside and those models that were shown to be predictive are retained, is not evidence of the futility of this process. Although seemingly messy, it is often pounced upon by denialists as evidence that modeling is not real science. It is most emphatically is real science. It allows us to decide which hypotheses should be disregarded and which particular ones should be retained until better models supplant them.

Again, due to the relative infancy of this area of science, its complexity, and the chaotic nature of weather and short-term climate, many models have been proposed and most have been discarded. But that is certainly not reason to abandon the scientific method. And we do have a few decades under our belt now, and the models will continue to improve our understanding.

Computer models have their uses but none of the current ones are seemingly capable of predicting the future. This tells me that climate is far more complex than some would have us believe. There are many unknowns that are not taken into account and result in models that have consistently grossly exaggerated the true level of warming.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Sorry, it is behind a paywall. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
Non-paywall quotations include-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2180
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Resources-links-documenting-Tol-24-errors.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/04/the-consensus-on-climate-change/
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-paper.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=m...that the consensus is indeed correct.&f=false
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/climate-for-whom-the-bell-tols.php
https://conflictresolutionpro.wordp...better-understanding-and-focus-avoid-adverbs/

Of course, you could have simply googled it yourself.

Sorry if I also flagged what I thought was your misspelling. My bad.

Lol, Skeptical Science is run by John Cook and that other charlatan Dana Nuccitelli. They are hardly likely to rubbish their own work!! Oh and the Guardian article is written by...wait for it...Dana Nuccitelli. In actual fact as flawed as that study by them was, it has been totally 87hijacked by the media. When it said that 97% of those papers that took a view supported AGW, indeed most did not, the media took that to mean that 97% of all the papers and scientists. That is just a downright lie and a pretty good example of how the alarmists and bullshit media operates. It wasn't that long ago that Obama repeated that crap as well and Clinton would be ten times worse. She will be like a modern Witchfinder General trying to seek non believers in CAGW and burn them at the stake.

If we are going to play blog wars then I draw your attention to the excellent one run by Joanne Nova.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/

 

[cancel2 2022]

Lol, Skeptical Science is run by John Cook and that other charlatan Dana Nuccitelli. They are hardly likely to rubbish their own work!! Oh and the Guardian article is written by...wait for it...Dana Nuccitelli. In actual fact as flawed as that study by them was, it has been totally hijacked by the media. When it said that 97% of those papers that took a view supported AGW, indeed most did not, the media took that to mean that 97% of all the papers and scientists. That is just a downright lie and a pretty good example of how the alarmists and bullshit media operates. It wasn't that long ago that Obama repeated that crap as well and Clinton would be ten times worse. She will be like a modern Witchfinder General trying to seek non believers in CAGW and burn them at the stake.

If we are going to play blog wars then I draw your attention to the excellent one run by Joanne Nova.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/

Bumpity bump!!