Ever heard that 97% of scientists agree with AGW?

[squ1d]

I'm too busy to get involved in walls of text at the moment, but I am a little puzzled to see these latest two slightly bizarre posts about AGW. Has someone been passing out funny tasting Kool-Aid?

[vendic]

Yes they have, I'm pretty sure it's not me though.
It used to be that skepticism was a good thing. Good things are now:
1) Consensus is good
2) Don't check if the facts still support the position once held
3) Refuse to even acknowledge anything contrary

As I've written several times, I am double checking a lot of my opinions. It seems however that the very idea of doing that is offensive to some. Just by doing so, I am compared to deniers (apparently the worlds worst) who are not that far from skeptics.

But skepticism is good, right?

Apparently it is if you disagree with the position, then it's healthy to be skeptical.
If you agree with a position (as I did with AGW) then double checking with a skeptical view is apostasy and treated as such. I'm waiting for someone to put a Jihad against me because I am questioning their faith. lol

In two different topics where people already have very well established opinions, the result has been the same. Little support of the idea of healthy skepticism, lots of opposition.

Rule (1) Never question the majority view.
Rule (2) If you do. Don't let it be known that you are.
Rule (3) Quit doing it publicly if you messed up (2)

*edited to add*

It sounds like I'm pissed off, but I'm not. I'm far more bewildered. I've always held the belief that checking, double checking and keeping up with the latest data as well as checking the that the core assumptions used in determining anything, need to be regularly checked is not only a good thing to do, but it is the correct thing to do.

e.g. The concept of uniformitarianism, as applied to analyzing tree ring data has recently being shown to be false. As such, any paper that used that premise for modeling, trend calculations etc are inherently flawed so are no longer acceptable as scientific evidence.
How that impacts our current consensus, I haven't determined yet.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/118_darrigo_etal.pdf

I could go on about other problems but I doubt anyone is really interested. Which to me is sad. That's ok though, I'll just continue on my merry way anyway.

[vendic]

r.e. the original title.

When most people think of climate deniers, they think of the extremists that think that the Earth is not warming. That's not what I am referring to.
The skeptics I am referring to are actual scientists in the field. They are having very different opinions, not on if the Earth is warming, but what the cause is. The current consensus by the IPCC is that it is dominated by CO2. A lot of scientists disagree. They are claiming that it is too simple. That there are many factors that are not used or modeled.

There are quite large variations in scientific research and opinion as to what the percentage of temperature rise is due to AGW, NOT that there is no such thing as AGW. This is a critical distinction. Almost all scientists agree that there is an effect on climate due to AGW, it's the amount that is the problem as well as several other issues.

I've got a rather good list of what the main areas of contention are. I have been reading both views. To be honest, it's not looking good that AGW is the main driver of GW. Yes it plays a part but if it's not the main driver then controlling emissions might be a lot of cost but little gain. Some projections show that if the USA drops emissions 30% it will affect global temperatures 0.03DegC by 2100.

The most interesting argument I have heard so far by a scientist, is that if we really thought the World was in serious danger, the best course of action is to introduce a 1 child policy. That will do more for the long term change than anything. Yet, most countries are happy with their current population or want to increase it. It's not a popular policy to make, even when the survival of the Humanity is at stake (according to some). We've done our part, we have no kids.

[Rommie]

No, this is bullshit. There is massive amounts of data for climate change that is occurring. You finding one website that doesn't explain one detail of it correctly does not make you a skeptic, that makes you basically doing a take on a witch hunt.

Case in point, I've yet to see you post about any of the massive amounts of evidence for climate change. Which leads me to believe you're not as interested in it. If you were interested in being a skeptic who is looking at all the data, I'd be reading a helluva lot more about all the other stuff in these threads, instead of a "this one little thing might be wrong, that means it's all wrong" rather than looking at all the massive amounts of other evidence also supporting the main conclusions.

Put it this way, there is as much evidence for climate change as there is that smoking causes cancer. I assure you they didn't conclude the latter based off of only one study, or even one method. Rather, there is a ton of evidence for that connection. But if you decided to become a skeptic about how smoking causes cancer and only touted the handful of studies that say it doesn't, or found one discredited method but ignored the dozens of others, that doesn't make you a skeptic but rather someone cherry picking evidence.

[vendic]

Maybe there is an explanation, I'm not looking for that yet. My first step is to look at the data that is not agreeing with the accepted view that it's all due to AGW and then see what I can find that explains that once I have all the contrary evidence.

I posted links to education departments and even the CSIRO's own website.
I posted links to studies.

I have no reason to post "for" AGW, I have done plenty of that in the past, look at FWIS2 for evidence. As I wrote above, I'm looking at the skeptic claims and will then look at debunking them.

Seeing as this line of inquiry is offending a number of people, I'll simply stop.
As I am the only one really doing the searching for skeptic sources, these two threads will die a natural death without my input. As will the "red pill" thread, since I'm no longer going to post in any of these topics from this point on.

My apologies for offending anyone.

[Tarragon]

Maybe there is an explanation, I'm not looking for that yet. My first step is to look at the data that is not agreeing with the accepted view that it's all due to AGW and then see what I can find that explains that once I have all the contrary evidence.

I posted links to education departments and even the CSIRO's own website.
I posted links to studies.

I have no reason to post "for" AGW, I have done plenty of that in the past, look at FWIS2 for evidence. As I wrote above, I'm looking at the skeptic claims and will then look at debunking them.

Seeing as this line of inquiry is offending a number of people, I'll simply stop.
As I am the only one really doing the searching for skeptic sources, these two threads will die a natural death without my input. As will the "red pill" thread, since I'm no longer going to post in any of these topics from this point on.

My apologies for offending anyone.

That's the easy way out. Now, I'm reminded of the ballad of Brave Sir Robin.

Could part of it be that you're posting publicly, which tends to invite comment? Could it be that by posting one side of an argument and saying you'll look at published responses to those criticisms later, it might be seen as putting the cart before the horse?

I, for one, don't want you to stop posting... because I don't want to stop posting pot-shots at ya.

I haven't read your newest links yet, because what would be the point if you won't look at responses to them. But, I'm still confused by the whole 1880 argument. I'd like to assume you're not suggesting that scientists didn't realize water runs downhill. That they didn't realize the amount of solid water above sea level affects the amount of liquid water in the ocean basins. I'm not sure if you're making a technical criticism on the date of the index point or the amplitude of the signal they claim to be seeing, or saying that since the non-technical apitprop is overly-simplistic, that it's easier to refute.

As for the glaciers themselves, how much do you know about the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets? In what ways is mass related to height and/or length? In what ways does precipitation affect the mass, what is the cross-section, how does that affect movement, and what climate regimes result in what changes in mass and motion? How do glaciers move, and is it by sliding or deformation, and how much, and how is that affected by temperature? Is the length of a glacier only correlated with colder temperatures, or can warmer temperatures increase the rate of precipitation, thereby increasing ice mass, thereby increasing pressure and causing a surge in a glacier? Can warmer temperatures increase the amount of peripheral melt that lubricates the base and causes it to flow faster, causing it to lengthen while thinning at the same time? I think Hansen wrote a good paper on this, but, ya know, it's Hansen.

Also, what other climate drivers in the 1800s might have affected the warmth of the globe, glaciers, and sea level, and are those signals detectable, and what would be their amplitude, and are they permanent or temporary, and if temporary, when did they become negligible. If there are events like this, could they have produced short-term extrema in data that is outside the baseline. Once these are detected and worked out, do these measurements regress toward the baseline? Does it stay there or is there a departure from the trend?

[vendic]

Could part of it be that you're posting publicly, which tends to invite comment? Could it be that by posting one side of an argument and saying you'll look at published responses to those criticisms later, it might be seen as putting the cart before the horse?

I did put the cart before the horse. You seem to forget that I was a supporter of AGW and am now looking at the other side to see if it has merit. Everyone seems to be thinking I've been a denier or something and am trying to convince the World.

I, for one, don't want you to stop posting... because I don't want to stop posting pot-shots at ya.

Have fun at it.

I haven't read your newest links yet, because what would be the point if you won't look at responses to them. But, I'm still confused by the whole 1880 argument. I'd like to assume you're not suggesting that scientists didn't realize water runs downhill. That they didn't realize the amount of solid water above sea level affects the amount of liquid water in the ocean basins. I'm not sure if you're making a technical criticism on the date of the index point or the amplitude of the signal they claim to be seeing, or saying that since the non-technical apitprop is overly-simplistic, that it's easier to refute.

The argument has been made that the GW temperature rise is the result of CO2 emissions by man. Those emissions did not exist in a way that would affect the temperature prior about 1880. So by looking at 1880 onwards, one can easily show correlation. It's just not possible if one looks back further, and, the data is out there.
The problem of course is that the temperature was rising before 1880 and we have the data to show it, and it was rising about the same rate. Since it could not have been due to CO2 emissions, then what was it and why would we suddenly expect it to have stopped around 1880 and CO2 to then take over seamlessly without so much as a hiccup is beyond me.

It's like saying, this car is traveling at 60 mph because I farted.
If we only look at the speed from the time I farted, one cannot see that it was travelling at the same speed before that.
If I show you a graph that shows that the car was travelling at 60mph before I farted, that changes things significantly.

Now there was a jump in the rate after the 1950's or so. This could be due to CO2, but the underlying rate that was happening before also needs to be removed from that to see the new contribution. Currently, the total new contribution is about the same rate as it was prior 1880. So assuming that the natural rate of rise did not change (there is little investigation into this area) then at most the new factor can only be 50% of GW we see today. Then of course we have to see what percentage of that is attributable to CO2. That's from what I have been reading is the main contention.

As for the glaciers themselves, how much do you know about the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets? In what ways is mass related to height and/or length? In what ways does precipitation affect the mass, what is the cross-section, how does that affect movement, and what climate regimes result in what changes in mass and motion? How do glaciers move, and is it by sliding or deformation, and how much, and how is that affected by temperature? Is the length of a glacier only correlated with colder temperatures, or can warmer temperatures increase the rate of precipitation, thereby increasing ice mass, thereby increasing pressure and causing a surge in a glacier? Can warmer temperatures increase the amount of peripheral melt that lubricates the base and causes it to flow faster, causing it to lengthen while thinning at the same time? I think Hansen wrote a good paper on this, but, ya know, it's Hansen.

I know little about it, I'm throwing their own argument back at them. They are the ones claiming that the glaciers are melting because of temperature rise, which is not an unreasonable assumption. I'm simply pointing out that they were melting well before humans started pumping out CO2 in the air. So to claim that they are melting because of CO2, is an unreasonable assumption.

Also, what other climate drivers in the 1800s might have affected the warmth of the globe, glaciers, and sea level, and are those signals detectable, and what would be their amplitude, and are they permanent or temporary, and if temporary, when did they become negligible. If there are events like this, could they have produced short-term extrema in data that is outside the baseline. Once these are detected and worked out, do these measurements regress toward the baseline? Does it stay there or is there a departure from the trend?

That's exactly what I am asking and what the climate "skeptics" are asking. Again, they nor I are denying that the temperature is rising. Where we disagree is how much is natural, what is involved, how much is man made and I personally have some serious issues with their historical data estimates.

Feel free to have fun flaming me but I'm seriously bailing out.

If you want to continue this, I'll ask you one thing. As someone who has worked in the area of precision instrumentation and calibration in a NATA laboratory, I know as well as anyone in that field that there must be a reliable standard to trace back to for any precision measurement. I see little of that understanding in some papers.

So, have a look at this recent paper on estimating past temperature with coral's. See if you can find the flaws in that study just on that one basic axiom, that there must be a reliable traceable standard. Then analyse the assumptions which must be valid (but are not verifiable) for the study to be of any use in examining past temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for anyone that wants to test their ability to be skeptical.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1182/ofr20151182.pdf

[Tarragon]

Different cart, different horse.

My point is I also had those same questions about AGW. I found the answers pretty easily and early in my investigation. Did I understand them? Mostly, but I already had foundational coursework in meteorology/climate, and astronomy, plus a lifetime of reading on the subject out of personal interest. I wasn't distracted by political issues, conspiratorial claims and deza, because I had training in politics, law, argumentation, group dynamics and communications, and could see it for what it was.

Am I that different from others? I dunno. On reflection, my studies and experiences tend to revolve around dealing with issues of uncertainty, probability, and generating firm plans from scant and conflicting data while anticipating unintended consequences. But I've noticed that the people I know who have problems with these issues are engineers. Maybe it's a mindset thing. After all, some of the science is counter-intuitive.