No Science Zone

[Storker]

Let's start the conversation with two basic questions.

1. Do you believe climate change is happening?

2. If yes, do you believe human behavior is influencing climate change?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

And two plus two equals four.

 

[EdC]

I'm 52 and when I was in 8th grade science class there were a couple absolute environmental facts that were not debatable as far as my science teacher was concerned, (sorry I don't have my text book from that time to give a proper citation.)

1-Ice ages were cyclical and the earth had for the last 100 years at that time been entering the next. The data was unequivocal.
2- All the oil in the world would be used up in 50 years (@10 years from today).

It is the same story with the original predictions when it was still "Global Warming"; that NYC would be underwater by now and that large areas of the earth would be uninhabitable by this time.

You can't make dire predictions that are not even close without losing credibility, ask the Mayan calendar end of the world people.

 

[Skeptic14]

Resorting to a consensus argument isn't science, logical or useful to any meaningful conversation. In fact it is an attempt to dissuade or shutdown discussion which is pretty scary, kinda makes it like a cult or religion that is above critique by anyone outside certain government funded organizations.

And secondly the 97% consensus statement is extremely disingenuous, some of the most well known climate science critics are within that 97% stat because of the highly vague and innocuous way it is collected.

 

[JohnN]

Resorting to a consensus argument isn't science, logical or useful to any meaningful conversation. In fact it is an attempt to dissuade or shutdown discussion which is pretty scary, kinda makes it like a cult or religion that is above critique by anyone outside certain government funded organizations.

And secondly the 97% consensus statement is extremely disingenuous, some of the most well known climate science critics are within that 97% stat because of the highly vague and innocuous way it is collected.

Of course you have some basis for your statement, or just your opinion?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

And the cite:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

 

[Skeptic14]

Which part? That consensus isn't science or logical?

Or that the consensus argument is used to shutdown discussion and make climate science above scrutiny by outsiders?

Or that it's disingenuous and vague?

 

[JohnN]

Which part? That consensus isn't science or logical?

Or that the consensus argument is used to shutdown discussion and make climate science above scrutiny by outsiders?

Or that it's disingenuous and vague?

You stated:

And secondly the 97% consensus statement is extremely disingenuous, some of the most well known climate science critics are within that 97% stat because of the highly vague and innocuous way it is collected.

What part of your statement didn't you understand? Perhaps you've spent some time independently researching and publishing your findings on climate change? Please share your knowledge with us.

You could save the US Navy millions of dollars, and maybe even get a medal
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdfhttp://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf

 

[Gr8WyattWhale]

The foxes at the pipes' outlets are getting positively obese./QUOTE]

Rofl

 

[Skeptic14]

Perhaps you've spent some time independently researching and publishing your findings on climate change? Please share your knowledge with us.

You could save the US Navy millions of dollars, and maybe even get a medal
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdfhttp://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf

So continuing attempting to shutdown or dissuade perceived dissent (the point of the consensus statement) with your "where's your published work" retort, not because I made any claim against current climate science theory but simply because I pointed out how unscientific and useless the consensus argument

Anyway you asked for a basis for my statement and as you quoted my entire statement I was wondering which particularly part you wanted my basis...

I'm going to assume that an explanation of the scientific process and hence why consensus isn't science isn't required.

My basis to why the 97% consensus statement is a bunch of hooey is from scientist themselves who are called "climate critics/deniers" by the in crowd and yet they say they fall within that innocuous 97% statistic.




And to hopefully ward off any misunderstanding of my posting the above links; agree or disagree with what these scientist think doesn't matter, what matters is they fall within that 97% consensus yet are skeptical of the dire claims made by some in the climate science community; makes the consensus statement useless to go with unscientific.

 

[JohnN]

So continuing attempting to shutdown or dissuade perceived dissent (the point of the consensus statement) with your "where's your published work" retort, not because I made any claim against current climate science theory but simply because I pointed out how unscientific and useless the consensus argument

Anyway you asked for a basis for my statement and as you quoted my entire statement I was wondering which particularly part you wanted my basis...

I'm going to assume that an explanation of the scientific process and hence why consensus isn't science isn't required.

My basis to why the 97% consensus statement is a bunch of hooey is from scientist themselves who are called "climate critics/deniers" by the in crowd and yet they say they fall within that innocuous 97% statistic.




And to hopefully ward off any misunderstanding of my posting the above links; agree or disagree with what these scientist think doesn't matter, what matters is they fall within that 97% consensus yet are skeptical of the dire claims made by some in the climate science community; makes the consensus statement useless to go with unscientific.

Really?
Have you bothered to research the good Dr.?
Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate | John Abraham

In part, some of the problems with his paper:

Before we get into the errors, let’s talk about what their model does. They basically treated the ocean like a non-moving fluid and allowed heat to diffuse into the ocean depths. They did allow some mixing in the upper layers through added terms in a one-dimensional equation. The model neglects down-welling or up-welling of waters which occur particularly at the poles. In the end, they end up with a bunch of tunable parameters, which they adjusted so that the model output matches the measured temperature history.

So, what were the errors and poor modeling choices?

1. The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered
2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Niño cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature
6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.

And so for his math:

But, I here want to talk about the numerical errors, in particular items 3, 4, 6, and 7. In order to explain what went wrong, I need to talk about the underlying math.

The diffusion equation Spencer and Braswell used has a second derivative of temperature with respect to depth in the water. To solve this equation, the common approach is to break the ocean into a number of finite slabs of water and approximate the derivatives by finite differences. So far, so good. The problems arise when you apply what are called boundary conditions. That is, conditions at the ocean surface and the bottom of the ocean. At both locations, Spencer and Braswell’s approach fails.

First, at the ocean surface, you are required to make calculations at the exact surface. In fact, the physical phenomenon which Spencer and Braswell introduce require actual surface temperatures. However, in their computer program, no surface temperatures were ever determined. They basically transcribed a temperature 25 meters deep into the ocean onto the surface (and no, they didn’t do this because of ocean mixing). At the ocean bottom, Spencer and Braswell insulated the ocean, and thereby did not allow any energy exchange there.

Finally, Spencer and Braswell incorrectly used upstream element-diffusivity values in their heat transfer term. They were obligated to use mean values representing adjacent elements. When we implemented the corrected numerical scheme, the quality of the results dissolved. Once again, Roy Spencer has failed in his attempt to show the Earth is not very sensitive to climate change.

These errors are the sort of thing that could have been avoided by consulting any elementary textbook on heat transfer, or any number of papers that have published similar ocean diffusion models. My colleague and co-author, Dr. Barry Bickmore from BYU described the situation like this,

What our paper shows is that Spencer and Braswell’s model was flawed on a very basic level, in such a way that it could have predicted wildly low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Whatever sensitivity their model predicts, the true value is probably significantly higher, and therefore probably in the range indicated by the IPCC.

Spencer and Braswell might object that their paper says ocean temperature measurements “might not provide a very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity.” Let’s just say that Roy Spencer forgot to include that little detail when he recently told a U.S. Senate committee, “Our most recent peer-reviewed paper on this subject... has arrived at a climate sensitivity of only 1.3 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, based upon a variety of global measurements, including warming of the global oceans since the 1950s.”

In a recent blog post, Dr. Spencer challenged well-known and well-respected Dr. Andrew Dessler to a debate. While the peanut gallery was busy chiding Dessler for not taking the bait, it perhaps is important to remember that the place where scientists debate is in the scientific literature. It is a venue that has not been kindto Dr. Spencer in the past decade or so. We published our latest work in an open-source journal here so that any interested reader can see the results for themselves.

Damn, peer review is a bitch, isn't it. . .

As for your original statement, was it 'alternative facts' or do you have something useful to offer?

 

[Skeptic14]

And to hopefully ward off any misunderstanding of my posting the above links; agree or disagree with what these scientist think doesn't matter, what matters is they fall within that 97% consensus yet are skeptical of the dire claims made by some in the climate science community; makes the consensus statement useless to go with unscientific.

Really?
Have you bothered to research the good Dr.?

You do realize that in your eagerness to argue with someone and play the game of "I've got more and better links/sources than you" you've completely missed my point.