"Crumbling Consensus"

[Jack Frost]

From the article:

"Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing." 

The article itself is a quick read,  On the other hand, if you decide to read the 500 papers that the article links to, it will be anything but a quick read.  Worthwhile yes, but quick - no.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.f1EChPZm.zcHBd3AR.dpbs

[Jack Frost]

 

But we hear over and over again that 97% of "climate experts" agree that humans are responsible for climate change.  Bad humans, tsk, tsk, tsk!

How was the 97% figure determined?

http://sppiblog.org/news/that-97-solution-again

Wow!

[ORH_wxman]

The whole 97% thing is really stupid. It's a silly semantics game. It depends on the question asked and how it is phrased. In the original, the question was phrased in that pretty strong skeptics like Roy Spencer would answer yes...since he believes that humans have a hand in climate change...just a much smaller amount than, say, the IPCC consensus. 

The debate in the literature isn't really whether humans have influence (even most hardcore skeptics accept they do)...it's how much and what the net effects are (I.E. Sensitivity and attribution studies). The blogosphere and then by proxy the media is typically what push this perception that all scientists agree on everything about climate change. Honestly, stuff like that is really not relevant to the debate...appealing to authority is an intellectually bankrupt way of thinking.

Appeal to the literature and make conclusions based on the veracity of the evidence. 

[Snow_Miser]

There are many incorrectly classified papers in the list. It is clear that Pierre Gosselin did not do a very careful job reading through some of these. No. 19 is a paper dealing with how Greenland ice albedo is declining faster than expected.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/477/2016/tc-10-477-2016.pdf

[Jack Frost]

On January 29, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Snow_Miser said:

There are many incorrectly classified papers in the list.

The real issue is whether there are any papers out of the 500 listed and linked that question the settled nature of the science.  So far I have seen quite a few that raise serious questions.

If one claims the science is not settled, you only need one paper pointing to a fundamental unresolved issue.

If one claims the science is settled, it is their obligation to knock em all down.

 

 

[chubbs]

13 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

The real issue is whether there are any papers out of the 500 listed and linked that question the settled nature of the science.  So far I have seen quite a few that raise serious questions.

If one claims the science is not settled, you only need one paper pointing to a fundamental unresolved issue.

If one claims the science is settled, it is their obligation to knock em all down.

 

 

You love to set up strawmen. This thread is cherry-pick BS from an anti-science site.  I read hundreds of scientific papers per year and my experience is 180 degrees opposite of that outlined in the article. I see climate science validated each and every day and with far reaching impacts that science is just beginning to comprehend. The article you cited is targeted to the gullible conservative who doesn't read the scientific literature and wants to hear negative commentary about the "other" side. You seem to have  taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. Very ironic, since you are drawing the distinction between "believers" and "non-believers" of climate science in another thread. If you are a true free thinker, pick out a couple of papers and come back with a specific point or two.

[Snow_Miser]

6 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

The real issue is whether there are any papers out of the 500 listed and linked that question the settled nature of the science.  So far I have seen quite a few that raise serious questions.

If one claims the science is not settled, you only need one paper pointing to a fundamental unresolved issue.

If one claims the science is settled, it is their obligation to knock em all down.

 

 

Read the paper that Pierre Gosselin said challenged the scientific consensus. It does not. He was extremely careless in his analysis. 

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/477/2016/tc-10-477-2016.pdf

[Jack Frost]

From the paper cited by Snow Miser:

"Specifically, we suggest that the absence of the effects of light-absorbing impurities in MAR could account for the difference. We also suggest that this hypothesis is supported by the trends observed along the ablation zone, where the differences between observed and modelled trends are more pronounced and the effect of the Terra sensor degradation plays a relatively small role. On the other hand, over the dry-snow zone, our hypothesis requires further testing, in view of the potentially higher impact of the sensor degradation on the observed albedo trend. The analysis of mod elled fields and in situ data indicated an absence of trends in aerosol optical depth over Greenland, as well as no significant trend in particulate light-absorbing emissions (e.g. BC) from fires in likely source regions. This is consistent with the absence of trends in surface aerosol concentrations measured around the Arctic. Consequently, we suggest that the increased surface concentrations of LAI associated with the darkening are not related to increased deposition of LAI, but rather to post-depositional processes, including increased loss of snow water to sublimation and melt and the outcrop- ping of “dirty” underlying ice associated with snow/firn re- moval due to ablation." 

This supports the conclusion that the science is settled?  One down, 499 (from 2016) to go.....

Snow, please add to Don's comments if you agree that there are flaws in Dr. Berry's paper regarding the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your first and, I believe, only comment was:

"So it's just a coincidence that sharp rises in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases just happened to coincide with anthropogenic emissions?"

587d961bb1207_ghgconcen.png.c21ed047d88d537fb0bbf45974bf5740.png (link to graph)

Need to do better if you seriously want to prove that the science is settled.  The graph posted is exactly what the paper refutes...

 

 

[chubbs]

13 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

From the paper cited by Snow Miser:

"Specifically, we suggest that the absence of the effects of light-absorbing impurities in MAR could account for the difference. We also suggest that this hypothesis is supported by the trends observed along the ablation zone, where the differences between observed and modelled trends are more pronounced and the effect of the Terra sensor degradation plays a relatively small role. On the other hand, over the dry-snow zone, our hypothesis requires further testing, in view of the potentially higher impact of the sensor degradation on the observed albedo trend. The analysis of mod elled fields and in situ data indicated an absence of trends in aerosol optical depth over Greenland, as well as no significant trend in particulate light-absorbing emissions (e.g. BC) from fires in likely source regions. This is consistent with the absence of trends in surface aerosol concentrations measured around the Arctic. Consequently, we suggest that the increased surface concentrations of LAI associated with the darkening are not related to increased deposition of LAI, but rather to post-depositional processes, including increased loss of snow water to sublimation and melt and the outcrop- ping of “dirty” underlying ice associated with snow/firn re- moval due to ablation." 

This supports the conclusion that the science is settled?  One down, 499 (from 2016) to go.....

Snow, please add to Don's comments if you agree that there are flaws in Dr. Berry's paper regarding the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your first and, I believe, only comment was:

"So it's just a coincidence that sharp rises in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases just happened to coincide with anthropogenic emissions?"

587d961bb1207_ghgconcen.png.c21ed047d88d537fb0bbf45974bf5740.png (link to graph)

Need to do better if you seriously want to prove that the science is settled.  The graph posted is exactly what the paper refutes...

 

 

I will give you props for trying but you are way off in your assessment. You have cherry-picked one paragraph to make a misleading point - sound familiar? Of course science isn't completely settled about every detail, otherwise there would be no need to conduct additional research.

This paper says absolutely nothing about the main tenets of climate change. Instead the paper addresses an impact of climate change, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The paper finds that the albedo of the ice sheet is decreasing more rapidly than expected, increasing the rate of melting. That sounds like bad news to me. As noted in the para above, there is uncertainty in what is causing the darkening, so more work is needed to improve predictions of the future.  The implication of this work is that Greenland will melt faster than climate modeling currently projects. This does not discredit climate science. Quite the contrary, it shows that science is working to improve our understanding. In the case of climate science, there are many impacts that are still uncertain, and scientists are typically conservative about drawing conclusions without solid evidence. Additional research, more often than not, results in better definition of negative impacts, worsening the projected impact. So the fact that science is not settled in the wide range of negative impact areas, only highlights the importance of taking steps to reduce the risk.

So yes one paper down and 499 to go.  Better luck next time.

 

[Snow_Miser]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

I will give you props for trying but you are way off in your assessment. You have cherry-picked one paragraph to make a misleading point - sound familiar? Of course science isn't completely settled about every detail, otherwise there would be no need to conduct additional research.

This paper says absolutely nothing about the main tenets of climate change. Instead the paper addresses an impact of climate change, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The paper finds that the albedo of the ice sheet is decreasing more rapidly than expected, increasing the rate of melting. That sounds like bad news to me. As noted in the para above, there is uncertainty in what is causing the darkening, so more work is needed to improve predictions of the future.  The implication of this work is that Greenland will melt faster than climate modeling currently projects. This does not discredit climate science. Quite the contrary, it shows that science is working to improve our understanding. In the case of climate science, there are many impacts that are still uncertain, and scientists are typically conservative about drawing conclusions without solid evidence. Additional research, more often than not, results in better definition of negative impacts, worsening the projected impact. So the fact that science is not settled in the wide range of negative impact areas, only highlights the importance of taking steps to reduce the risk.

So yes one paper down and 499 to go.  Better luck next time.

 

Skeptics very, very often misinterpret and distort the conclusions of papers. It happened very frequently, and was one reason why I decided to accept mainstream conclusions on climate science. 

[Snow_Miser]

Another such example of a skeptic misinterpreting and distorting conclusions on a paper came from this tweet.

If one actually read the paper (Cahill et al. 2016), they clearly note this in the conclusions:

Which agrees almost perfectly with Kopp et al. 2016, a paper skeptics were trashing just a few weeks earlier. 

[Snow_Miser]

No. 62, Pedersen et al. 2016 is also not a 'skeptic' paper.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1907/2016/cp-12-1907-2016.pdf

[Snow_Miser]

Neither is no. 40, Liu et al. 2016:

" The PDSI from March to June during the period 1680–2012 AD in central Inner Mongolia was reconstructed for the first time using local tree-ring data. The reconstructed series captures severe drought event in the late 1920s that seriously affected most part of northern China. Running variance analyses indicate that the variability of drought increased sharply after 1960, which may implicate anthropogenic related global warming effects on the region. "

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3115-6

[Jack Frost]

 

I would not have cited this article but for the link to the 500 papers.  It is a very good thing indeed to read as much as you can and, if possible, to do so with an open mind.

Snow, your posts above indicate that you have indeed read some if not many of the papers and for that, I commend you.

Serious question:  Have you seen anything in what you have read that might question the belief that the recognized de minimus human contribution of releasing geolocked carbon into the atmosphere ( as opposed to simply breathing) will lead to serious negative impacts to the planet?

Being able to see and articulate the multiple sides of any argument seriously enhances one's credibility... 

[Snow_Miser]

4 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

I would not have cited this article but for the link to the 500 papers.  It is a very good thing indeed to read as much as you can and, if possible, to do so with an open mind.

Snow, your posts above indicate that you have indeed read some if not many of the papers and for that, I commend you.

Serious question:  Have you seen anything in what you have read that might question the belief that the recognized de minimus human contribution of releasing geolocked carbon into the atmosphere ( as opposed to simply breathing) will lead to serious negative impacts to the planet?

Being able to see and articulate the multiple sides of any argument seriously enhances one's credibility... 

The more I read and studied about this issue, the more I realized that humans were causing climate change, and that it could be a serious problem. 

[Jack Frost]

On February 2, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Snow_Miser said:

The more I read and studied about this issue, the more I realized that humans were causing climate change, and that it could be a serious problem. 

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Please discuss - thank you so much!!!

[pazzo83]

Can people post from legit sources for f*ck's sake?  "Ed Berry's Blog"... seriously?

Jack Frost - you've replied to like the last 15 threads on here.  Slow.  Your.  Roll.

[Jack Frost]

On February 13, 2017 at 11:24 AM, pazzo83 said:

Can people post from legit sources for f*ck's sake?  "Ed Berry's Blog"... seriously?

Jack Frost - you've replied to like the last 15 threads on here.  Slow.  Your.  Roll.

 

I know pazzo83, I just hate it when people post articles written by scientists who have PhDs in Atmospheric Science.  Those non-legit sources are just so bothersome.

After this I promise to consider Slowing.  My.  Roll.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Apologies in advance for the following from Wikipedia: 

Adjective[edit]

pazzo m (feminine singular pazza, masculine plural pazzi, feminine plural pazze)

1. crazy, insane

[Solar]

On 3/5/2017 at 10:13 PM, Jack Frost said:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Given the depth of the searches in which you're engaging to find material and the dubious results therefrom, I really question your motives here.  I suppose being a contrarian has some allure, but people playing such a role are often half as witty and twice as tedious as they believe themselves to be.

[skierinvermont]

Seems like Chubbs and Snow Miser have pretty thoroughly refuted the OPs conclusions here.

[Jack Frost]

On March 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Solar said:

Given the depth of the searches in which you're engaging to find material and the dubious results therefrom, I really question your motives here.  I suppose being a contrarian has some allure, but people playing such a role are often half as witty and twice as tedious as they believe themselves to be.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Sorry, it just gets so old reading posts that have no substance but instead try to intimidate through personal attacks.