Poll

[POLL] Is AGW a sure thing?

Yes, no doubt at all.
46 (34.1%)
No, something smells fishy.
39 (28.9%)
The IPCC's "very likely" 90% scenario sounds about right.
50 (37%)

Total Members Voted: 135

Author Topic: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers  (Read 35057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4275
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #200 on: May 22, 2017, 01:56:18 am »
I don't really care about their opinion about AGW, until they have a model worth a crap it's just so much hot air.

For the moment global climate research is a historical science, not a predictive one. That's why the disappearance of the MWP and the hockeystick were so important ... although the hockeystick is already water under the bridge even for the "consensus" scientists.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 01:59:04 am by Marco »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #201 on: May 22, 2017, 02:26:16 am »
I don't really care about their opinion about AGW, until they have a model worth a crap it's just so much hot air.

For the moment global climate research is a historical science, not a predictive one. That's why the disappearance of the MWP and the hockeystick were so important ... although the hockeystick is already water under the bridge even for the "consensus" scientists.

More anti-science gibberish, opinion, and made up nonsense. Not a single fact.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9727
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #202 on: May 22, 2017, 08:23:10 am »

The 97% figure is utter bullshit,

No, it's verifiable fact based on several studues. From earlier in this thread:

----

Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:

Quote
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

More can be found HERE

It's also a fact  that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.

Damn those Pesky Facts.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • Country: pl
  • Thanked: 7,397,482 times
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #203 on: May 22, 2017, 09:57:17 am »
Yes, the facts: The "scientists" are simply tweaking the knobs of their models year after year trying to match the "facts", those pesky facts...
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 12:16:35 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • Country: pl
  • Thanked: 7,397,482 times
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #204 on: May 22, 2017, 10:02:15 am »
Everybody should watch "an inconvenient truth" again and judge by themselves if that was scaremongering or not.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • Country: pl
  • Thanked: 7,397,482 times
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #205 on: May 22, 2017, 10:06:06 am »
Imagine Newton saying here's the law of universal gravitation, if it does not work simply adjust G to match.
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline FloFo

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: de
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #206 on: May 22, 2017, 10:15:49 am »
Anw how do you think G was determined? Making experiments and deriving the constant from these experiments. And it was refinied over a long periode by doing more accurate experiments ...
Same is true for all scientific theories (even they might be calles laws): You make a theory based on assumptions, optimise them to fit your current knowledge/experimental data, make predictions from your theory which can be tested by an experiment, do the experiment and compare your prediction with the outcome, and then optimize your theory. THAT is scientific work.
You can never proof that a theory/law is true, you can either show that it agrees with your current knowledge or show that it's not accurate and try to optimize it. Thats true for klimate simulation as well as for Newtons laws.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4346
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #207 on: May 22, 2017, 10:19:18 am »
I'm not interested enough to look up what WRT AGW means. Or if you are pro or against climate change. I've read soo much bullshit over the years, that it is just scary. Few days ago, I've read a science show, which stated, that the sea levels will not rise, because if you have ice in the water, and the ice melts, the level does not rise. They had a setup with ice cube in the glass. They did not mention, what happens with thermal expansion, or ice above the water.

People believe whatever they want. They believe in the man in the sky. I dont want to change their belief. They also belíve that breaking the law is bad, so that is all we need to care about. Changing the laws.
You dont need for everyone to agree, you just need to make sure, that stupid people dont get to say what to do.
 

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4275
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #208 on: May 22, 2017, 10:47:04 am »
More anti-science gibberish, opinion, and made up nonsense. Not a single fact.

The LIA is not a global phenomenon in recent Mann papers? (Who basically gets to define the concensus.) This doesn't in and of itself invalidate the original hockeystick graph?

Didn't the predictions of pretty much all models from a couple decades ago start diverging from reality in the decades following?
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17159
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #209 on: May 22, 2017, 11:02:59 am »
More anti-science gibberish, opinion, and made up nonsense. Not a single fact.
The LIA is not a global phenomenon in recent Mann papers? (Who basically gets to define the concensus.) This doesn't in and of itself invalidate the original hockeystick graph?

Didn't the predictions of pretty much all models from a couple decades ago start diverging from reality in the decades following?
This kind of reasoning misses the big picture! You sound like someone who is convinced the earth is flat complaining the assumption the earth is shaped like an egg doesn't seem to be true to the earth must be flat.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • Country: pl
  • Thanked: 7,397,482 times
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #210 on: May 22, 2017, 11:07:12 am »
you just need to make sure, that stupid people dont get to say what to do.

That much is true, and in that sense, how well are we doing in your opinion?
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline jonovid

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 757
  • Country: au
    • JONOVID
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #211 on: May 22, 2017, 12:01:33 pm »
Quote
Everybody should watch "an inconvenient truth" again and judge by themselves if that was scaremongering or not.
:horse:
inconvenient truth the movie was just inconvenient scaremongering & propaganda exercise by the global deep state and that fraud al gore. its the same people that say humanity is a pest, the same people that seek to control all the global resources. the same people that fly around the world and hold big $$$ conferences calling for more taxes on the masses.
Hobby of evil genius      basic knowledge of electronics
 

Offline Tepe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Country: dk
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #212 on: May 22, 2017, 12:34:14 pm »
Huge container ships are extremely efficient because they transport such a vast quantity of cargo all at once on that one single engine. Can you imagine how much fuel would be consumed and how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks?
A Maersk Triple-E has a capacity of 20,568 TEUs - a semi typically a capacity of 2 TEUs so let's compare such a ship to about 10,000 semi trucks hauling 20,000 TEUs
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1682
  • Country: pl
  • Thanked: 7,397,482 times
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #213 on: May 22, 2017, 12:47:27 pm »
Quote
how much resulting pollution you'd get from a convoy of 19,000 semi trucks

From China to say NZ? I can't...  >:D
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #214 on: May 22, 2017, 12:51:50 pm »
Damn those Pesky Facts.

The fact that Cook found about 28,000 authors of papers having something to do with climate. selected about 8,000 of them to ask by email and a self selected 1000 or so bothered to reply with 97% of them giving the same answer. I don't even know or care what the question was he got an opinion from a selected and self selected less than 4% of vaguely defined climate scientists then used it to claim a 97% consensus amongst all climate scientists.

Such huge dishonesty doesn't inspire much confidence in the rest climate science and AGW proponent claims does it?

That is the problem with good lies, they are still lies.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4346
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #215 on: May 22, 2017, 01:37:12 pm »
you just need to make sure, that stupid people dont get to say what to do.

That much is true, and in that sense, how well are we doing in your opinion?
Very well, especially the United States of 'merica, with their brand new russian spy environment friendly president.
And the European union. Look, they put a preference on diesel, beacuse it emits less CO2, and completely annihilates everything with Nox emissions. Absolutely brilliant.
 

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4275
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #216 on: May 22, 2017, 02:34:58 pm »
This kind of reasoning misses the big picture!

I didn't do any reasoning in that post, I asked rhetorical questions to prove my previous post did indeed contain more than a single fact.

I am missing where they are hiding their science allowing them to claim the ability to make predictions. They can't do experiments, so testing for accurate predictions is the only way for them to somewhat test their theories. The last couple of decades have not been kind to them, better luck next couple. For now climate science as far as prediction is concerned has falsified theories and unproven theories.

I don't believe in in any narrow definition of science ala Popper's philosophy of science ... but I'm not generous enough to see anything scientific about majority voting on unproven theories.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 02:36:30 pm by Marco »
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17159
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #217 on: May 22, 2017, 04:40:56 pm »
This kind of reasoning misses the big picture!
I didn't do any reasoning in that post, I asked rhetorical questions to prove my previous post did indeed contain more than a single fact.

I am missing where they are hiding their science allowing them to claim the ability to make predictions. They can't do experiments, so testing for accurate predictions is the only way for them to somewhat test their theories. The last couple of decades have not been kind to them, better luck next couple. For now climate science as far as prediction is concerned has falsified theories and unproven theories.
You carefully snipped my remark about not taking a hint into a certain direction as proof something is going on.
The fact is that a long term (a couple of decades) trend shows temperatures are rising globally. Ofcourse there are many factors at play so it is impossible to point at a single cause. Yet it has been made reasonably certain that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere isn't helping to make the temperature to fall again. Reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is something we can change so I see no reason why we should not try that. Especially if we save money, preserve the remaining fossil fuels and reduce the dependency on supply from conflict zones at the same time.

So far it is pretty straightforward. But when it comes to effects like melting ice, sea levels, CO2 sources/sinks, effects on the climate, etc it comes down to guestimates on how severe they are. But either way these are just logistical problems.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 04:42:48 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4275
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #218 on: May 22, 2017, 05:56:01 pm »
The fact is that a long term (a couple of decades) trend shows temperatures are rising globally.

More like a century with pauses.

Quote
Reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is something we can change so I see no reason why we should not try that.

But we don't actually try that, we fuck around in the margins and create mostly arbitrary market distortions and abusable subsidies.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9727
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #219 on: May 22, 2017, 07:15:37 pm »

The fact is that a long term (a couple of decades) trend shows temperatures are rising globally.

More like a century with pauses.

Quote
Reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere is something we can change so I see no reason why we should not try that.

But we don't actually try that, we fuck around in the margins and create mostly arbitrary market distortions and abusable subsidies.



These ^ are the Pesky Facts I was referring to earlier.

Who cares what the actual percentage of climate scientists is. 97%, 90%...? That's a complete strawman.

Temperature is hard data.

The chemistry of greenhouse gases is easy to understand, the amounts of gases in the air are measurable.

You'd have to be an idiot not to grasp what's happening here.

 

Offline Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5973
  • Country: de
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #220 on: May 22, 2017, 07:39:05 pm »
The basics about the greenhouse effect are relatively easy - however the details, when it comes to saying on how much the temperature will rise is really difficult.  Thus with the basics, there is usually consensus, but with the details there is still quite a controversy. The point that AGW "skeptics" are currently promoting is that humans are not the cause for warming - is kind of last resort. Before they claimed it was not even getting warmer, but ignoring facts is getting harder here. Especially the version of putting doubt to the source of the CO2 is kind of dump - not even a Donald Trump would buy this. The measured CO2 increase and coal / oil usage match reasonably well - here consensus should be more like 99.x % - with the rest not knowing about maths, getting paid for (or for a personal interest) making up fake news or just follow there favorite guru like a religion without thinking.

As the topic is influencing our live, even if it is by politics spending some money on it or setting regulations, essentially anybody has a kind of opinion of AGW. However taking the consequences of AGW serious is a rather inconvenient truth: it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.

So we tend to ignore it, as long if we see the slightest chance that it might not end up as bad as the experts tell us. As climate is reacting slow - it would be more like our children or grandchildren that would pay the price. Even if the warming would stop due to no more new CO2, something like melting of the ice in Greenland and rising sea-level would continue for maybe a century.  With other pollution and use of resources we tend to do the same. So this pattern is not specific to AGW, it is more like typical human.

However there is some hope: Changing the economy to lower emissions is currently expensive for those who go ahead, but in the long run it may mean that they have the technology and patents for the future. So there might be a long term plan behind China dominating the market for solar modules, even if the are loosing some money on it now. Being late in the change may also mean becoming an underdeveloped country in the future.

A tipping point for accepting AGW might be when the markets realize that is might not be a good idea to do long term investments in areas less than about 5 m above see level. So it is expected that at some time in the future housing prices in low lying cities like NewYork will collapse, once the flooding is accepted.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4346
  • Country: nl
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #221 on: May 22, 2017, 08:07:43 pm »
it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.
It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. Electric cars are higher quality, more reliable, clean, and less noisy than regular ones. Switching to electric cars would increase the quality. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles. Factories can run on solar and wind energy, polluting less. It is possible. It requires a large amount of investment, and it would create a strong economy, new jobs. I have no idea, what are they waiting for. I drive a hybrid, and when I dont live in an apartmant anymore, I will install solar. Maybe I could afford a model 3 or a golf GTE at some point, or a plug in I could probably solve the daily commute by electricity.
1% IDK how possible that would be. As far as I understand, 7% of human CO2 emission comes from the humans themselves, and about 80% from fossil fuels.
We can reach this from the other side also. Plant trees, and not burn them. Of course this should be on large scale, and it does not have to be trees, can be alga or something.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9727
  • Country: 00
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #222 on: May 22, 2017, 08:43:48 pm »
The basics about the greenhouse effect are relatively easy - however the details, when it comes to saying on how much the temperature will rise is really difficult.  Thus with the basics, there is usually consensus, but with the details there is still quite a controversy. The point that AGW "skeptics" are currently promoting is that humans are not the cause for warming - is kind of last resort. Before they claimed it was not even getting warmer, but ignoring facts is getting harder here.

And before that they all believed that volcanoes put out more CO2 then humans. That one lasted about a year IIRC.  :palm:

As the topic is influencing our live, even if it is by politics spending some money on it or setting regulations, essentially anybody has a kind of opinion of AGW. However taking the consequences of AGW serious is a rather inconvenient truth: it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living

I don't see why.

A massive part of the CO2 comes from electricity generation. A big government-funded push for renewable energy wouldn't reduce anybody's standard of living and would create a lot of new jobs.

The whole "you're gonna be driving a tiny car and living in a dimly lit hut" thing is being paid for by the oil companies.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 08:47:32 pm by Fungus »
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17159
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #223 on: May 22, 2017, 09:08:51 pm »
it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.
It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles.
Don't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline kaz911

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 816
  • Country: gb
Re: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #224 on: May 22, 2017, 09:11:57 pm »
I do not doubt that increase in CO2 is a byproduct of human behaviour

But I do doubt that main source is fossil fuels....

See attachment for human population vs CO2 since 1850'ish. Some data is estimates but all from official sources. Data intervals with no data are interpolated. All sources listed in PNG text

/k
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf