More metadata on man-made climate change

[Eastoff]

You decide:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

[blazerboy30]

You decide:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Assume man can directly influence climate change. I give you a remote control to pick the exact temperature you want for Earth.

What temperature do you pick?

 

[HailBlazers]

Assume man can directly influence climate change. I give you a remote control to pick the exact temperature you want for Earth.

What temperature do you pick?

Whatever temperature is best for straw men to thrive.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I don't want to decide because I'm not a goddamn scientist.

 

[blazerboy30]

Whatever temperature is best for straw men to thrive.

It's not a strawman.

If we're convinced, and upset, about man controlling climate change, there has to be some idea of what is the "right" temperature and climate. If we've made it warmer than 200 years ago, is that bad? Should we make it colder?

 

[Eastoff]

Assume man can directly influence climate change. I give you a remote control to pick the exact temperature you want for Earth.

What temperature do you pick?

I would say the temperature such that the oceans stop rising and the poles stop melting. The temperature that the midwest stops losing mass amounts of crops. If you wanted a specific number, I couldn't tell you, because it fluxuates.

 

[PapaG]

You decide:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

So people of like minds are validating each other's work on AGW.

Shocking!

 

[Denny Crane]

If you look at the 2/3 of the abstracts that don't take a position on AGW, then the 66% consensus would be... what exactly?

What a very odd spin these guys put on their unscientific survey of articles allowed to be published due to bias in their favor.

 

[Eastoff]

So people of like minds are validating each other's work on AGW.

Shocking!

Ah thank you! Finally someone read it and spoke on the topic at hand. I did find it a little expected. But there were some interesting numbers still that only 0.7% rejected human cause.

 

[Eastoff]

If you look at the 2/3 of the abstracts that don't take a position on AGW, then the 66% consensus would be... what exactly?

What a very odd spin these guys put on their unscientific survey of articles allowed to be published due to bias in their favor.

It is strange. But I think they may have been trying to say "Climate change is happening" We don't want to preach why it is happening. Here is data.

 

[Eastoff]

For the record, I don't think climate change will destroy the world. It will just severely damage Human economy.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is strange. But I think they may have been trying to say "Climate change is happening" We don't want to preach why it is happening. Here is data.

No opinion on AGW, though.

That means none of their observations indicate Man is any source of any warming observed.

 

[blazerboy30]

I would say the temperature such that the oceans stop rising and the poles stop melting. The temperature that the midwest stops losing mass amounts of crops. If you wanted a specific number, I couldn't tell you, because it fluxuates.

That's the point. Nobody knows what that temperature is. Yet somehow you think we should start changing the temperature because it isn't currently the "right" one.

 

[Denny Crane]

TNR is a left wing mag.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go

But in a political environment where vast swathes of the American right reject even the premise of global warming—and where prominent right-wing pols suggest it’s an enormous fraud—this inconvenient news could easily lead to still more acrimony over the subject. Especially since scientists themselves aren’t entirely sure what the evidence means. If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?

More at the link

 

[Denny Crane]

More from TNR

Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty mean that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s “sensitivity” to additional greenhouse gas emissions. For Held, the last 10 to 15 years “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.” Held is not alone.

In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity. Nowhere is there more uncertainty than in the clouds. “It’s like cancer,” Held said, referring to the “many, many problems” posed by the many kinds of clouds, each with their own special properties that might reflect or trap more or less of the sun’s heat. Some progress has been made on clouds, especially with cirrus clouds.

 

[Eastoff]

T If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?

We all know what it means, new models.

 

[Eastoff]

That's the point. Nobody knows what that temperature is. Yet somehow you think we should start changing the temperature because it isn't currently the "right" one.

I also can't tell you what color pants you're wearing. But that doesn't mean everyone in the world is ignorant on the subject. There are Blazerboy pant experts. I trust them to give me the right color.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's not a strawman.

If we're convinced, and upset, about man controlling climate change, there has to be some idea of what is the "right" temperature and climate. If we've made it warmer than 200 years ago, is that bad? Should we make it colder?

Where has anyone said that humankind is controlling the temperature?

Having an effect on something does not mean control.

 

[Eastoff]

Where has anyone said that humankind is controlling the temperature?

Having an effect on something does not mean control.

http://io9.com/5815423/10-villains-who-used-bad-weather-as-a-weapon

 

[MarAzul]

I would say the temperature such that the oceans stop rising and the poles stop melting. The temperature that the midwest stops losing mass amounts of crops. If you wanted a specific number, I couldn't tell you, because it fluxuates.

But enough ice has only recently melted to allow passage in to the North West passage and the fjords of Western Greenland where the Vikings traveled and settled over a thousand years ago. Is that a bad thing?

 

[Eastoff]

But enough ice has only recently melted to allow passage in to the North West passage and the fjords of Western Greenland where the Vikings traveled and settled over a thousand years ago. Is that a bad thing?

I will re-iterate my point. The earth will definitely survive. But it could still cause a lot of economic damage from farm lands becoming less fertile, and fresh water becoming less plentiful. Humans have established a lot of cities and structures based off where we were at in the twentieth century. We can adapt, but it could be very painful.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Climate change is the perfect idiotic argument that industry loves. They've got the debate at the exact place they want it: useless bickering that boils down to partisan politics. The issue is pollution and its effect on vital ecosystems around the world, ecosystems that humanity relies on. The issue is the rapid dwindling of resources coupled with the meteoric increase of consumption. When Earth can't handle human civilization any longer, we won't be arguing about temperature changes, we'll be killing each other over food and water.

 

[HailBlazers]

I will re-iterate my point. The earth will definitely survive. But it could still cause a lot of economic damage from farm lands becoming less fertile, and fresh water becoming less plentiful. Humans have established a lot of cities and structures based off where we were at in the twentieth century. We can adapt, but it could be very painful.

This. Is happening, as we speak. And we're only compounding the problem:

http://www.seashepherd.org.au/comme...se-industrialization-of-ocean-destruction-614

Climate change is the perfect idiotic argument that industry loves. They've got the debate at the exact place they want it: useless bickering that boils down to partisan politics. The issue is pollution and its effect on vital ecosystems around the world, ecosystems that humanity relies on. The issue is the rapid dwindling of resources coupled with the meteoric increase of consumption. When Earth can't handle human civilization any longer, we won't be arguing about temperature changes, we'll be killing each other over food and water.

Bingo. All of it.

 

[MarAzul]

I will re-iterate my point. The earth will definitely survive. But it could still cause a lot of economic damage from farm lands becoming less fertile, and fresh water becoming less plentiful. Humans have established a lot of cities and structures based off where we were at in the twentieth century. We can adapt, but it could be very painful.

You seem to be making the point that the human population has become too great for the resource of the earth when you consider the cycles of change that do occur. I sure would agree with that possibility. I know, over 50 years ago the population of the US was less than half of what it is now and China was known to be grossly over populated with 600 million souls. Now look, we have an immigration bill pending that estimates predict will result in a population in the US of 600 million in the later half of the 21 century. Damn! who would have ever predicted that would have ever gained much support? We need to get to the root problems here, not quibble about symptoms.

 

[Denny Crane]

I will re-iterate my point. The earth will definitely survive. But it could still cause a lot of economic damage from farm lands becoming less fertile, and fresh water becoming less plentiful. Humans have established a lot of cities and structures based off where we were at in the twentieth century. We can adapt, but it could be very painful.

The real economic damage being done is the diversion of productive things into green things. Like food shortages caused by using our food to make ethanol.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You seem to be making the point that the human population has become too great for the resource of the earth when you consider the cycles of change that do occur. I sure would agree with that possibility. I know, over 50 years ago the population of the US was less than half of what it is now and China was known to be grossly over populated with 600 million souls. Now look, we have an immigration bill pending that estimates predict will result in a population in the US of 600 million in the later half of the 21 century. Damn! who would have ever predicted that would have ever gained much support? We need to get to the root problems here, not quibble about symptoms.

So are you suggesting that human overpopulation is the root problem? Dare I ask what you would suggest is the solution?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The real economic damage being done is the diversion of productive things into green things. Like food shortages caused by using our food to make ethanol.

The reason why humanity will kill itself off is because we too often considered only the economic damage.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So are you suggesting that human overpopulation is the root problem? Dare I ask what you would suggest is the solution?

Overpopulation is not a root problem, but it aggravates all our other problems. Half of the human population dying off would solve a lot of things, but only in the short term.

 

[Denny Crane]

The reason why humanity will kill itself off is because we too often considered only the economic damage.

On a pure economic basis, the market drives the right things to be done. Like McDonalds serving food in landfill-friendly packaging.

 

[MarAzul]

The real economic damage being done is the diversion of productive things into green things. Like food shortages caused by using our food to make ethanol.

Yep, to say nothing of how utterly dumb it is.