Consensus? There never was

[BethesdaWX]

http://wattsupwithth...ics/#more-30903

This Paragraph caught my eye.

This is discussing the "97% Worldwide AGW Consensus between Scintists" statement......

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The surveyy results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Wait.....out of 10,257 EARTH SCIENTISTS, they choose 77 of them to represent the 97% Worldwide consensus statement?

This is why AGW theory is falling apart.

[Kelvin Wave]

It's not trickery since it is clearly stated in the paper. Also, look at this, straight from her paper:

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.

... still a vast majority. Although, the existence of consensus is not the ideal way to test the validity of a theory.

http://wattsupwithth...ics/#more-30903

This Paragraph caught my eye.

This is discussing the "97% Worldwide AGW Consensus between Scintists" statement......

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The surveyy results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Wait.....out of 10,257 EARTH SCIENTISTS, they choose 77 of them to represent the 97% Worldwide consensus statement?

This is why AGW theory is falling apart.

[BethesdaWX]

Missed the point. Question 1: Has the earth warmed since the 1800's? (Yes obviously). Question 2, are humans a significant factor in this warming? (There was no expanation....if we contributed 25% of the warming, that is signficant.. even 15% cold be considered "significant").... Even I believe we have contributed to warming.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of the Earth scientists who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen — I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1,000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the Earth scientists replied that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe human activity has been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a increase of 10% or 15% or 35% to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus — almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for a subset that would yield a higher percentage. They found it — almost — by excluding all the Earth scientists whose recently published peer-reviewed research wasn’t mostly in the field of climate change. This subset reduced the number of remaining scientists from over 3,000 to under 300.

[WeatherRusty]

Missed the point. Question 1: Has the earth warmed since the 1800's? (Yes obviously). Question 2, are humans a significant factor in this warming? (There was no expanation....if we contributed 25% of the warming, that is signficant.. even 15% cold be considered "significant").... Even I believe we have contributed to warming.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of the Earth scientists who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen — I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1,000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the Earth scientists replied that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe human activity has been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a increase of 10% or 15% or 35% to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus — almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for a subset that would yield a higher percentage. They found it — almost — by excluding all the Earth scientists whose recently published peer-reviewed research wasn’t mostly in the field of climate change. This subset reduced the number of remaining scientists from over 3,000 to under 300.

Next time my tooth aches I think i will go ask an astronomer what I should do about it.

[LakeEffectKing]

Next time my tooth aches I think i will go ask an astronomer what I should do about it.

How would the hypothesis of AGW (as is set forth at this point), be falsifiable in your eyes? IOW, what "tests" can we apply via the scientific method to strengthen the hypothesis and set it on course to obtain theory status, or invalidate it? All theory must jump these hurdles to get there. Evidence, known physical aspects of a complex interactive system and interpretive embellishments aside, we HAVE to have testing that is unambiguously crafted.....fail or pass. If those tests cannot be set, the hypothesis reamains stagnant.

[WeatherRusty]

How would the hypothesis of AGW (as is set forth at this point), be falsifiable in your eyes? IOW, what "tests" can we apply via the scientific method to strengthen the hypothesis and set it on course to obtain theory status, or invalidate it? All theory must jump these hurdles to get there. Evidence, known physical aspects of a complex interactive system and interpretive embellishments aside, we HAVE to have testing that is unambiguously crafted.....fail or pass. If those tests cannot be set, the hypothesis reamains stagnant.

What about tests that already have been conducted such as satellites registering the spectral signature of increasing energy absorption by CO2 and methane. This valadates the enhancement of the greenhouse effect hypothysis. How about the observation that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This helps to validate the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect is the cause of ongoing warming as this is just what one would expect of greenhouse warming . If it were the Sun both troposphere and stratosphere would warm simultaneously.

CO2 is the one forcing growing at a rate sufficient to explain the current warming when added to all other known forcing agents in computer modeled simulations. Without the forcing by CO2 the models can not reproduce the warming we have seen. We know the additional atmospheric CO2 to be of fossil fuel origin due to the unique isotopic signature of the carbon building up in the atmosphere. Plants prefer to absorb C12 over C13, so when we burn fossilized plants we release a disproportionate amount of C12 to C13. C12 concentration is building up in the atmosphere over C13. This demonstrates the buildup of CO2 to be of anthropogenic origin.

The physics describing CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well established. It's impact as a forcing in the atmosphere of the current Earth is well established at 3.7W/m^2. Given the application of the Planck Function and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law we know that that forcing gives 1.2K of surface warming before feedbacks at equilibrium and independent of all other factors. This stuff is well established science which satisfies all tests from the temperature of planets to the distant stars.

These test of hypothesis to this point all support the concept. There may be others, but these come to mind immediately.

Beyond this point we have the consideration of feebacks which based on analysis of past climate response to a given forcing, the direct study of how temperature and specific humidity has responded to recent volcanic eruptions and computer modeling, leads us to believe a total climate response somewhere between 2 and 4.5K at equilibrium. The system is not at equilibrium (energy imbalance at TOA) so there is still warming in the pipeline due to past emissions. Maybe the total response will be ~2K, maybe ~4.5K...we just don't know. It is not therefor possible to state with conviction what the actual temperature of the Earth will be at any particular time in the future but the potential is strongly suggestive of serious consequences.

[BethesdaWX]

What about tests that already have been conducted such as satellites registering the spectral signature of increasing energy absorption by CO2 and methane. This valadates the enhancement of the greenhouse effect hypothysis. How about the observation that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This helps to validate the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect is the cause of ongoing warming as this is just what one would expect of greenhouse warming . If it were the Sun both troposphere and stratosphere would warm simultaneously.

CO2 is the one forcing growing at a rate sufficient to explain the current warming when added to all other known forcing agents in computer modeled simulations. Without the forcing by CO2 the models can not reproduce the warming we have seen. We know the additional atmospheric CO2 to be of fossil fuel origin due to the unique isotopic signature of the carbon building up in the atmosphere. Plants prefer to absorb C12 over C13, so when we burn fossilized plants we release a disproportionate amount of C12 to C13. C12 concentration is building up in the atmosphere over C13. The demonstrates the buildup of CO2 to be of anthropogenic origin.

The physics describing CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well established. Itj's impact as a forcing in the atmosphere of the current Earth is well established at 3.7W/m^2. Given the application of the Planck Function and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law we know that that forcing gives 1.2K of surface warming before feedbacks at equilibrium and independent of all other factors. This stuff is well established science which fits all test from the temperature of planets to the distant stars.

These test of hypothesis to this point all support the concept. There may be others, but these come to mind immediately.

Beyond this point we have the consideration of feebacks which based on consideration of past climate response to a given forcing, the direct study of how temperature has responded to recent volcanic eruptions and computer modeling leads us to believe a total climate response somewhere between 2 and 4.5K at equilibrium. The system is not at equilibrium so there is still warming in the pipeline due to past emissions. Maybe the total response is ~2K, maybe ~4.5K...we just don't know. It is not therefor possible to state with conviction what the actual temperature of the Earth will be at any particular time in the future but the potential is strongly suggestive of serious consequences.

Again, you do realize, with CO2 rising to 400ppm, that if these estimated forcing forumlas were true, Global temps should hold between 0.6-0.8C above avg in the means by now....right? The Mean has been near 0.3C. Lets not forget now, we have Solar IR, Cloud Cover Loss, And the warm ocean phases. In the end, CO2 warming has been minimal. Anyone who argues the PDO/AMO do not "mask" or "enhance" the appearance of warming is a nutjob. Yes, the do not add to the energy budget, but they can give physical manifestation of an imbalance that exists when altered.

A cooling trend for 8 years interrupted by ENSO warm does not fit in with 400ppm CO2 rise. Have you ever thought that maybe energy is recycled, not a constant build up? The GHE is not about adding energy, and we;re not. The more we add, the more is given off, and in a different form of composite.

In reality, we don't know much.

[WeatherRusty]

Again, you do realize, with CO2 rising to 400ppm, that if these estimated forcing forumlas were true, Global temps should hold between 0.6-0.8C above avg in the means by now....right? The Mean has been near 0.3C. Lets not forget now, we have Solar IR, Cloud Cover Loss, And the warm ocean phases. In the end, CO2 warming has been minimal. Anyone who argues the PDO/AMO do not "mask" or "enhance" the appearance of warming is a nutjob. Yes, the do not add to the energy budget, but they can give physical manifestation of an imbalance that exists when altered.

A cooling trend for 8 years interrupted by ENSO warm does not fit in with 400ppm CO2 rise. Have you ever thought that maybe energy is recycled, not a constant build up? The GHE is not about adding energy, and we;re not. The more we add, the more is given off, and in a different form of composite.

In reality, we don't know much.

Guess what Bethesda? I agree with the bolded! I hope I have made myself clear to you. If not I apologize. I argue the mainstream science as it stands. Until and unless it is overturned I will remain with it that way. That's because from a physical standpoint the science as it stands is highly internally consistent and in accord with all of basic science.

I'm tired and not inclined to argue much further so respond but I will say good night.

[Snow_Miser]

It's not trickery since it is clearly stated in the paper. Also, look at this, straight from her paper:

Yes, but folks like John Cook like to misrepresent the facts.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, but folks like John Cook like to misrepresent the facts.

Another conspiracy theorist.

[Hambone]

Ever sit in a room by yourself and felt cold? Ever brought a whole bunch of people into that room and suddenly it gets warmer? ARW.. Anthropogenic Roomal Warming.