Reply to: Cook et al 2013 97% bulltulip

[DimPrawn]

In all this Brexit doom I forgot that mankind will cease to exist due to climate change.

May as well vote, out the World has been destroyed by AGW anyways....

[NigelJK]

Of the 90% what percentage have an invested interest in CC (finacial or otherwise)? What percentage of the 10% have an invested interest in CC (finacial or otherwise)?

And now that 'everyone' agrees what exactly are you going to do about it, just keep churning out posts (which given the climate changes apparently associated with generating electricity you really should limit)?

[pjclarke]

Oh c'mon. 90% of science is 'wrong'? Smells like denial. Sure it is always developing; science is a continually evolving, self-correcting process, and the consensus is our best understanding at this moment.

However the basic science behind the greenhouse theory was established over a century ago, and nobody credible disputes that manmade GHG emissions are exerting a warming effect, the only real uncertainty is over how much this influence will raise temperatures, a measure called climate sensitivity, and even if it is at the low end of the possible range we still have a serious problem.

The 'conspiracy of group-thinking grant-hungry climate scientists ' theory doesn't really work either. Even if it existed, there is always more kudos to be gained by falsifying an accepted position than confirming it. Anyone who could do so would be in for a Nobel, minimum, not to mention the monetary gratitude of some of the most profitable companies on the planet….

In fact oil companies, notably Exxon, researched the issue decades ago, and then they stopped.

Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modeling, including a $1 million, three-year research project which outfitted their largest*supertanker, the*Esso Atlantic*(fr), with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans.[11][12]*In 1981, Exxon shifted its research focus to*climate modelling.[13]*These climate modelling efforts were part of the broad scientific consensus on climate change.[13]*In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonM...ge_controversy

[bobspud]

There was an extremely well discussed program on radio 4 earlier in the year that explains why over 90% of the reported science in any field is actually wrong and the dangers that are associated with this. The prognosis was that too many scientists look for the pattern and then try to prove what they want to see rather than what the fact is. This is inherent in the way that we conduct science and design experiments. There was also a more sinister point made that if someone gives you a years funding and says prove that black is white. The chances are there will be someone that can manage to do it....

[pjclarke]

Ho hum.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Or, to put it another way

[DimPrawn]

Your data ends in April last year, here is an equivalent, but up to date chart of NASA data for the month of February.

Strongest NAO ever perhaps?

[pjclarke]

If you believe in all this AGW stuff, you can convince yourself that there's a trend sloping up left to right.

However, put the chart into Paint and turn it upside down, and the same people would say the chart still slopes up left to right.

Your data ends in April last year, here is an equivalent, but up to date chart of NASA data for the month of February.

[WTFH]

If you believe in all this AGW stuff, you can convince yourself that there's a trend sloping up left to right.

However, put the chart into Paint and turn it upside down, and the same people would say the chart still slopes up left to right.

Um, the graph you displayed doesn't have a title for the Y axis, can you tell me what the Y axis represents?

[DimPrawn]

If you believe in all this AGW stuff, you can convince yourself that there's a trend sloping up left to right.

However, put the chart into Paint and turn it upside down, and the same people would say the chart still slopes up left to right.

[BlasterBates]

[pjclarke]

But the "scary" outliers the warmists like to use in the "doom" scenerio is just the peak of the ENSO oscillation.

The point being that each peak is higher than the last. Pseudosceptics take the trend from peak to peak and announce 'No global warming for <insert number> years'.

[DimPrawn]

ENSO is an oscillation, by definition trendless.

But the "scary" outliers the warmists like to use in the "doom" scenerio is just the peak of the ENSO oscillation.

[pjclarke]

ENSO is an oscillation, by definition trendless.

[BlasterBates]

Yeah lets wait for the upcoming "monster" Godzilla La Nina before we jump to conclusions about record high temperatures.

[pjclarke]

Which part of

Both announced the hottest month on record, unsurprising given the influence of El Nino superimposed on AGW.

is giving you the problem?