Earths Climate Change - Cyclical or Man-Made, Both or Other?

[pavelcherepan]

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

 

If by incredulity you mean "refusal to believe something" then yes, I refuse to believe, because science is based not on beliefs, but on evidence and if I consider whatever evidence I have seen so far to be not entirely conclusive then I can also decide to postpone choosing sides and wait until further evidence will confirm for me that either view is the correct one.

 

You also seem to speak of the climate change as non-debatable, like it is a fact and not a scientific theory and that is not really a proper way of behaving in a scientific discussion.

[Phi for All]

You also seem to speak of the climate change as non-debatable, like it is a fact and not a scientific theory and that is not really a proper way of behaving in a scientific discussion.

 

Perhaps it's partly frustration with a tiny minority perspective that somehow seems to be stalling significant greenhouse gas reduction efforts that desperately need to start as soon as possible. To me, it seems like we're not seriously trying to put out the fire because we're too busy arguing over whether it was set by a human or just happened naturally.

[pavelcherepan]

Perhaps it's partly frustration with a tiny minority perspective that somehow seems to be stalling significant greenhouse gas reduction efforts that desperately need to start as soon as possible. To me, it seems like we're not seriously trying to put out the fire because we're too busy arguing over whether it was set by a human or just happened naturally.

 

It would be a valid assumption if I were debating the point that anthropogenic influence is real, wouldn't it? Yet on multiple occasions I clearly stated that I agree with humanity's influence on global warming.

 

Or am I not supposed to be able to peer-review evidence provided to me on a scientific forum? If I found that the evidence is incorrect it doesn't automatically mean that I'm on the other side of barricades. There is already a majority vote that man-made climate change is real, so why messing with numbers? To get 100% approval?

[iNow]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing

[pavelcherepan]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing

 

Thanks for these articles. There's a lot of numbers, a lot of references to peer-reviewed studies et cetera, but the only thing none of these articles covers is the global climate change during the Holocene. We live in what is generally referred to as an interglacial period of the current ice age and since the minor ice age of 14-16 century CE the global climate has been generally becoming warmer.

 

Apart from the obvious change in temperature what is not really discussed in any of these reports is a possible positive feedback by the Earth's hydrosphere. That is, increased global temperatures lead to increased evaporation with water vapor being the strongest greenhouse agent in the atmosphere. Additionally, rise of the global ocean temperatures result in a reduced solubility of CO₂ in water and hence it's release into the atmosphere.

 

 

This positive feedback is mentioned briefly in the IPCC report but is looked at not as a real contributor but instead a result anthropogenic influence. None of the articles you refer to even mentions the possibility of increased water temperature being a cause rather than a result. That's an omission in my opinion.

 

Additionally, based on ice core data from lake Vostok in Antarctica covering some 400,000 years the current temperature increase is not the highest on record for this time period and same with CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Additionally, from the graphs below you can see the correlation between rising global temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ levels but again as with the case of positive feedback of ocean temperatures there is no direct evidence to decide which one of those is correct:

 

a) Increase in CO₂ emissions leads to increase in global temperatures, which in turn leads to more CO₂ being generated,

or

b) Increase of global temperatures lead to increase of global ocean temperatures, which in turn leads to increase of CO₂ and water vapor emissions and to further increase in global temperature

 

Hence, as I said, I'm waiting for a study that will include and quantify effects of global temperature change due to periodic climate variations before I can be very sure whether anthropogenic influence plays a leading role in climate change or it's just one of major contributors.

 

[studiot]

I'd be interested to learn more about those graphs. Pavel.

 

What does the temperature variation [math]\Delta T[/math] vary from?

And what is is the variation in temperature of?

 

The carbon dioxide levels are self explanatory.

 

The dust levels are stated as ppm dust levels in what, thae atmosphere, the ocean?

And ppm measured how?

 

The correlations are interesting, however, and hopefully less distorted than the Gore efforts.

 

Many thanks.

[overtone]

Apart from the obvious change in temperature what is not really discussed in any of these reports is a possible positive feedback by the Earth's hydrosphere. That is, increased global temperatures lead to increased evaporation with water vapor being the strongest greenhouse agent in the atmosphere. Additionally, rise of the global ocean temperatures result in a reduced solubility of CO₂ in water and hence it's release into the atmosphere

The physical properties of CO2, the solar energy trapping properties of an increased atmospheric concentration of it, are straightforward and accepted - we all accept the physics, yes? Then:

 

There is no contradiction between the hydrosphere feedback and the primacy of anthro CO2 boosting as instigating factor. This feedback is a major factor in the various alarms and warnings emerging from the climate researchers about the effects of CO2 accumulation, along with the methane feedback, the ice melt feedback, and so forth. It's famous. It is known to be damped, rather than self-accelerated, on Earth at its current orbit and so forth - obviously, liquid water has existed on the planet for many years - due to (among other features) water's short residence time in the air. It rains, freezes out, absorbs into stuff, etc. So something has to maintain it at its long term equilibrium levels, and that something has been known to be carbon dioxide heat trapping for a very long time now - ever since the question came up, far earlier than than the current global warming concerns.

 

Takehome: the CO2 concentration governs the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere of this planet; this is both geological observation and physical inevitability.

 

There is also no contradiction between warmer water releasing CO2 and the primacy of anthro CO2 as instigating factor, thus: We know where the extra CO2 in the air came from in the first place - isotope analysis and re-analysis, especially by the folks connected to the Mauna Loa observatory but others as well, confirm that the entire increase (within measurement error) is almost certainly (within two standard deviations of analytical approximation) the product of fossil fuel combustion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/fig_tab/477547a_F1.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/allcsiro-mlo.html

 

1) So that's where any large amount of extra CO2 being released into the air from a warming ocean - such as the Pacific Ocean that surrounds Mauna Loa and covers much of the planet - is coming from. 2) That explains the combination of a warming ocean and a rising concentration of CO2 in it - an odd combination, otherwise, as warming water should be releasing CO2 from its equilibrium store, right?

 

 

 

 

The correlations are interesting, however, and hopefully less distorted than the Gore efforts.

There are no "Gore efforts". Al Gore never published a single graph of his research findings. There are also no "distortions" in the published scientific record of these matters.

Edited March 19, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

the only thing none of these articles covers is the global climate change during the Holocene.

During the Holocene, it was not the average annual temperatures that were warmer (as they are today). Instead, it was warmer during summers and cooler during winters (and the period of above average summer temps did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere or at all in the southern hemisphere). We also know that this was due to the axial tilt of the earth. We are not experiencing the same axial tilt characteristics today, so the point is irrelevant (hence, not included in the data shared).

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

Apart from the obvious change in temperature what is not really discussed in any of these reports is a possible positive feedback by the Earth's hydrosphere. That is, increased global temperatures lead to increased evaporation with water vapor being the strongest greenhouse agent in the atmosphere. <snip> None of the articles you refer to even mentions the possibility of increased water temperature being a cause rather than a result.

I'll ask again: What mechanism do you propose is responsible for the warming waters? It's not magic, so what's causing it? Do tell us...

 

Additionally, based on ice core data from lake Vostok in Antarctica covering some 400,000 years the current temperature increase is not the highest on record for this time period

Nobody argued that it was. Why do you believe this relevant, exactly?

 

I'm waiting for a study that will include and quantify effects of global temperature change due to periodic climate variations before I can be very sure whether anthropogenic influence plays a leading role in climate change or it's just one of major contributors.

Wait no longer: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.abstract

 

The references section here also more than adequately covers your request: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

 

Here is more again: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

[pavelcherepan]

Thanks for the links, overtone and iNow. It will take some time to read through all of those and re-assess my position.

 

 

 

Nobody argued that it was. Why do you believe this relevant, exactly?

 

Hardly relevant and logically flawed if used as an argumentation. Apologies for that.

 

 

 

There is no contradiction between the hydrosphere feedback and the primacy of anthro CO2 boosting as instigating factor.

 

snip

 

There is also no contradiction between warmer water releasing CO2 and the primacy of anthro CO2 as instigating factor

 

 

Sorry, I don't recall mentioning that it was contradictory.

 

 

 

What does the temperature variation vary from?

And what is is the variation in temperature of?

 

The temperature change comes from measurement of ratios between ²H/¹H and comparing those to same ratio in a standard and it refers to the temperature variations of the ocean from where this ice had originally evaporated. And also similar studies involving ¹⁸O/¹⁶O ratios are used for the same purpose.

Edited March 20, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[overtone]

 

 

There is no contradiction between the hydrosphere feedback and the primacy of anthro CO2 boosting as instigating factor.

 

snip

 

There is also no contradiction between warmer water releasing CO2 and the primacy of anthro CO2 as instigating factor

Sorry, I don't recall mentioning that it was contradictory.

You seemed to think there was an issue there, that consideration of hydrosphere feedback or warming water release of CO2 could lead to a re-evaluation of the primacy of anthro CO2 boosting in the recent climate trends, if it were included in the articles you were commenting on. This is not the case, was the point: both of those matters are governed by the anthro CO2 boost. They are consequences, in the current regime of changes, and as consequences they have both been carefully considered in the appropriate circumstances. The primacy of the anthro CO2 boost in driving the underlying trends of the world's climate is not challenged by either of those factors.

[studiot]

 

pavelcherepan

The temperature change comes from measurement of ratios between ²H/¹H and comparing those to same ratio in a standard and it refers to the temperature variations of the ocean from where this ice had originally evaporated. And also similar studies involving ¹⁸O/¹⁶O ratios are used for the same purpose.

 

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was not asking how the temperature changes were deduced.

 

Your vertical axis plots change of temperature.

 

Change from what temperature?

 

Is the change from a common base, an average or some function of the previous temperatures?

 

Also what about the particulate counts?

 

 

 

 

[Essay]

...just an fyi on several minor points, plus a little commentary:

 

And when those results have been split into categories there was an interesting figure of 1.02% of abstracts that actually endorsed the standard definition which stated: "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)".

If you wonder why that figure of 1.02% seems low, it is probably because most of the surveyed papers did not set out to study that specific, "very likely" qualifier, of the general AGW premise. It's my impression that most "climate science" or any "earth systems" science papers will set out to answer a more specific question, the answer to which may then falsify or support the general greenhouse theory.

 

So it would presume bias, or be like propaganda, if they mentioned or endorsed that particular definition in their abstract. But I'd expect that virtually 100%, from that one percent of papers actually focusing on this particular, "very likely" question, did confirm the notion ...that human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming.

 

 

... all I did was a peer-review of the evidence you provided, it didn't seem to be entirely valid and I hate forged numbers.

Firstly, what we do here isn't actually a "peer review" level of critique; certainly not of the sort that these papers and their authors endure. As an example of why that is so, your idea that these numbers are "forged" is showing that you did not fully understand where the numbers came from, for each case. You can be sure that with such widely published and cited studies, many people have already tried to find flaws or errors.

 

 

Or am I not supposed to be able to peer-review evidence provided to me on a scientific forum? If I found that the evidence is incorrect it doesn't automatically mean that I'm on the other side of barricades. There is already a majority vote that man-made climate change is real, so why messing with numbers? To get 100% approval?

We've been through many of these studies on this forum here before, and in the end, somebody always finds the explanation about why there are small differences between the journalistic headlines and the many specific conclusions provided by each study. Those numbers aren't mistakes or forged, but rather they are complicated; and that is why we most of us here are not professional peer reviewers. It's just too easy to discover mistakes or flaws or attempts to get approval. You will be very hard pressed to discover any actual "messing with the numbers."

 

 

Additionally, rise of the global ocean temperatures result in a reduced solubility of CO₂ in water and hence it's release into the atmosphere.

 

 

 

This positive feedback is mentioned briefly in the IPCC report but is looked at not as a real contributor but instead a result anthropogenic influence. None of the articles you refer to even mentions the possibility of increased water temperature being a cause rather than a result. That's an omission in my opinion.

 

Additionally, based on ice core data from lake Vostok in Antarctica covering some 400,000 years the current temperature increase is not the highest on record for this time period and same with CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. Additionally, from the graphs below you can see the correlation between rising global temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ levels but again as with the case of positive feedback of ocean temperatures there is no direct evidence to decide which one of those is correct:

 

a) Increase in CO₂ emissions leads to increase in global temperatures, which in turn leads to more CO₂ being generated,

or

b) Increase of global temperatures lead to increase of global ocean temperatures, which in turn leads to increase of CO₂ and water vapor emissions and to further increase in global temperature

 

Hence, as I said, I'm waiting for a study that will include and quantify effects of global temperature change due to periodic climate variations before I can be very sure whether anthropogenic influence plays a leading role in climate change or it's just one of major contributors.

 

You're asking good and insightful questions, which have all been asked before, within the science community, decades ago. And they have all been fully addressed or answered as a part of testing and confirming the greenhouse theory generally, both through paleoclimate studies and "current" records and/or observations, and through comparative modeling. When you take a class in the subject, they explain how CO2 can operate as a "positive feedback" or as a "primary forcer" on climate, so that changing temperatures can either lead or lag changing CO2 levels, depending on the circumstances.

 

 

 

*There is no contradiction between the hydrosphere feedback and the primacy of anthro CO2 boosting as instigating factor. ....

....

 

 

*1) So that's where any large amount of extra CO2 being released into the air from a warming ocean - such as the Pacific Ocean that surrounds Mauna Loa and covers much of the planet - is coming from. 2) That explains the combination of a warming ocean and a rising concentration of CO2 in it - an odd combination, otherwise, as warming water should be releasing CO2 from its equilibrium store, right?

 

 

*There are no "Gore efforts". Al Gore never published a single graph of his research findings. There are also no "distortions" in the published scientific record of these matters.

Good explanation on why CO2 drives the water vapor equilibrium, and how the science already accounts for this factor! I think that is why it doesn't get mentioned explicitly in those papers you cited, since it is such an implicit assumption; not an omission.

===

 

But I don't think the extra CO2 is "being released into the air from a warming ocean," since there is enough CO2 in the air to still push the equilibrium into the water. It is the acidity of the equilibrium, in the oceans, which is changing in response to the extra CO2 that wouldn't (otherwise) as easily dissolve in a warming ocean.

===

 

Also, I think the "Gore efforts" allude to that big graph from his movie, where he needed a forklift to "complete" the (second, green CO2 graph from above, which is the same "Vostok") graph that he used. Since that Vostok graph only shows CO2 levels up through about 1900, Gore needed to add an extra 100 ppm scale onto the graph (taking it up to 400 ppm, from the 300 ppm shown above), so he could complete the line as it would appear "today," showing this past century's data added onto the original Vostok record.

 

We're currently at 400 ppm, so the next time he does that demonstration he will need a bigger forklift, since he will need to adjust the scale up to 450 or 500 ppm.

 

~ just fyi

Edited March 20, 2015 by Essay

[pavelcherepan]

 

If you wonder why that figure of 1.02% seems low, it is probably because most of the surveyed papers did not set out to study that specific, "very likely" qualifier, of the general AGW premise. It's my impression that most "climate science" or any "earth systems" science papers will set out to answer a more specific question, the answer to which may then falsify or support the general greenhouse theory.

So it would presume bias, or be like propaganda, if they mentioned or endorsed that particular definition in their abstract. But I'd expect that virtually 100%, from that one percent of papers actually focusing on this particular, "very likely" question, did confirm the notion ...that human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming.

 

That was exactly my point. I saw the data, I asked whether it showed that those percentages of scientists agreed that 'anthropogenic climate change is real' or that 'anthropogenic climate change is the leading cause of global warming'. I was told to check it for myself and that just what I did.

 

 

 

You will be very hard pressed to discover any actual "messing with the numbers."

 

I shouldn't have said that. The heat of the argument got the better of me.

 

I don't think that numbers are forged, but that the original graphs represented the data in the form that was rather ambiguous, in my understanding at least.

[Essay]

That was exactly my point. I saw the data, I asked whether it showed that those percentages of scientists agreed that 'anthropogenic climate change is real' or that 'anthropogenic climate change is the leading cause of global warming'. I was told to check it for myself and that just what I did.

...so can you tell us what you found? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but unless I missed some specific problem that you found, I'm wondering why your general review (of whatever you looked at) sounded fairly negative and seems to have only added "heat" to your concerns.

 

 

 

I don't think that numbers are forged, but that the original graphs represented the data in the form that was rather ambiguous, in my understanding at least.

It's been years since I looked at many of the details in the original studies, which many of these headlines and summary claims are based upon, but if you have a specific point that seems ambiguous, I'm sure it could be explained. I'm assuming you see why, if you ask any slightly different question ('real' / 'leading cause') or look at any different sample group or studies, then you'll get different answers. Are there any differences that seem unjustified to you?

 

~

[pavelcherepan]

Thanks guys for some highly useful insights on modern scientific developments towards climate change causes. I've been keeping away from this subject for a while so I'll be spending next few weeks updating my information with all publicly available data.

Still, there are a few moments of misunderstanding that I wanted to, hopefully, clear out.

 

Change from what temperature?

 

Sorry, studiot, missed your question earlier. That's the change from modern day average ocean temperatures.

 

 

 

 

2) That explains the combination of a warming ocean and a rising concentration of CO2 in it - an odd combination, otherwise, as warming water should be releasing CO2 from its equilibrium store, right?

 

Thanks, overtone, for correcting me. I totally forgot that acidity was rising. In that case, I agree, my point is moot.

 

 

As an example of why that is so, your idea that these numbers are "forged" is showing that you did not fully understand where the numbers came from, for each case. You can be sure that with such widely published and cited studies, many people have already tried to find flaws or errors.

Essay, this comment has two logical flaws in it. First of all you are assuming my inability to comprehend the data without providing any evidence to support your position. The second flaw follows this line of thought (apologies for paraphrasing): "If n scientists haven't found any errors then whatever pavelcherepan might find is wrong by default". By let's not focus on that, it's not the real issue here.

My point is that you misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it properly) the object of my critique. I have no intention on criticizing the published and peer-reviewed studies. I would assume those to be correct if not without some minor strange points. Instead, what I was looking at checking was the compilation graph of several studies that was shown in post #17. This particular chart doesn't come from a peer-reviewed study, but is rather intended for general public and didn't have the amount of fact-checking that original studies had.

Here is the snippet of the graph (from the bottom part)



Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reference to a study by Nolan and Zimmerman. There are studies by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman on the subject but none of those had anyone named Nolan as a co-author. There was a study done in 2009 by Doran and Zimmerman that matches the number of respondents shown here but the results look different from what is shown on graphs:

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

If you check the full report of the study, probably just like myself, you won't find from whence numbers of 1% and 11% are coming from. Or I might need a new set of glasses.

Next to the graph representing the study of Anderegg et al.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html



Again, if you check the original study I bet you won't find a figure of 98.5%.

They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus.

So to conclude this part of my rambling, I believe I've done a rather thorough fact-checking and found that the compilation chart that's been provided as an evidence has misrepresented data, that ultimately doesn't match what actual studies have shown. The amount of difference is irrelevant, as I wasn't trying to prove that the consensus was different.

Now as far as original studies are concerned, Essay, you said that :

I'm wondering why your general review (of whatever you looked at) sounded fairly negative and seems to have only added "heat" to your concerns.

while I don't think that I was all that negative if not a bit sarcastic. I apologize if I did sound aggressive as it was definitely not my intention.

You said, that in a widely published studies like these many have already tried to find flaws, right? And they did. Since the following has little to do with my initial point, I'll hide it. Feel free to skip.

For example, with the study of Cook et al., there is a group of scientists that are opposed to the consensus number saying that their work has been misrepresented.

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

Anderegg's study was questioned on methodology and also on dividing responses in just two groups or "convinced" and "unconvinced", rather than doing a more in-depth study of various views:

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.extract

Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote.

And as far as Doran & Zimmerman's study is concerned, I'm questioning the methodology as well. For example,

...are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of those specialists 96.2% (76 out of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 out of 77) answered "yes" to question 2.

So let me get this straight. They asked 79 climatologists to answer their questions and out of those 76 agreed that global temperature has risen since 1800's. OK, that makes sense, but then out of these 79 'chosen' respondents 75 agreed that human influence on climate is significant. Yet they quote the figure "75 out of 77", but what did the remaining 2 specialists say?

In fact, wouldn't it be weird that there's a higher percentage of scientists who agree on significance of human influence than the percentage of those who agree that temperatures have risen? So, then that means that there are scientists who consider that temperatures haven't risen since 1800's and yet. human influence is significant? Where's logic in that?

Also, I haven't done proper calculations, but I question the statistical significance of responses by these 79 specialists in the context of scientific community as a whole and in the context of the entire study of 3146 responses.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[studiot]

 

pavelchaperan.

Quote

Change from what temperature?

 

Sorry, studiot, missed your question earlier. That's the change from modern day average ocean temperatures.

 

Gosh if I understand this correctly (and the graph is correct), that graph is utterly amazing.

 

 

It appears to me to state that, during the last half a million years, there has been a periodic upward jump of around 10^oC in the world ocean temperature, with a subsequent relaxation of -10^oC over the next 100,000 years. The sawtooth waveform is unmistakable and there are 5 peaks shown over the timescale.

 

 

This graph really warrants much dicussion.

Edited March 22, 2015 by studiot

[iNow]

Even if my quick search for a visual summary to use in a discussion forum with a largely lay audience turned up a graph that some people feel is imprecise and slightly exaggerates the consensus (which I remained unconvinced of, but will stipulate so as to move the discussion forward), there remains an overwhelming agreement about human activity being the current primary driver of the changing climate, both among scientists in general and even more so among the most expert specialists in climatology specifically.

 

Whether the number is 98%, 82%, 91% or something in between, the core point is that the consensus surrounding the anthropogenic driver is overwhelming, and this has neither been refuted nor negated. The rest of this in the weeds discussion is useful for pedantry, but does little more than nip at the margins of an otherwise firmly established truth.

Edited March 22, 2015 by iNow

[swansont]

Below is a link to a very recent article in The Australian, below that is a paragraph from the article by Professor Richard Tol. Is the 97% Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming Correct?, what are the real figures?

 

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/global-warming-consensus-claim-doesnt-stand-up/story-e6frg6zo-1227276959248

 

 

The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isnt. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

!

Moderator Note

Aren't we still waiting for your summary of talking points in the Carter video?

 

Since this is a somewhat different topic, I have split it

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88349-97-consensus/

 

It will also be locked, in order to motivate you to do as you are supposed to.

 

[Ant Sinclair]

You are warranted swansont in pointing the above out! Since I started going over Carters' video I have had to check out for Myself the points He was putting across as well as cross-referencing His findings to others and My own research into this same subject. This work is by no means a "little" task and Iam endeavouring with it day by day inbetween participating on other threads and trying to balance family life.

It is on its' way.

[swansont]

You can do this one talking point at a time, if you wish.