What percentage of climate change do you believe or know is man made?

Deuce said:

The calculations are complete horse**** because the site totally ignores natural absorption of CO2 when it comes up with the "natural emissions" numbers.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm not entirely well versed in the subject honestly. I tried my best to critique the research especially in reference 5). The study uses almost entirely secondary documents.

faithful_servant said:

Would you please so kind as to point it out???

Click to expand...

The site you linked makes a comparison of human-emitted CO2 to naturally-emitted CO2. Trouble is, they ignored naturally-absorbed CO2. It's ignoring half the carbon cycle. While natures gross emissions are quite high, the net emissions are near zero. (In fact, you might even say it's a negative number because nature absorbs a lot of mankind's CO2)

This error is similar to looking at Apple, Inc's revenue but ignoring all of its expenditures. The math is correct, but the number is ultimately meaningless.

They were hoping nobody would check their numbers.

Deuce said:

You have to specify a timeframe.

Click to expand...

During a Solar minimum cycle, less sunspot activity and a documented cycle, the Earth's temperature would naturally cool some measurable amount. I think 9 of the last 10 years are the hottest in documented records. Much of this hottest years on record occurred during the recent Solar Minumum. My conclusion is that the man made contribution to Global Warming must be very high to overcome this cycle.
From Wiki
"During 2008-2009 NASA scientists noted that the Sun is undergoing a "deep solar minimum," stating: "There were no sunspots observed on 266 of [2008's] 366 days (73%). Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Sunspot counts for 2009 dropped even lower. As of September 14, 2009 there were no sunspots on 206 of the year's 257 days (80%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the National Space Science and Technology Center NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center.[7] It's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-19th century.[7] A "clockwork pattern" that has held true for more than 200 years"

Threegoofs said:

I suppose so... but whats the point? You think the proof that no one can find this on a simple internet search totally dismisses the massive amount of scientiific research that has gone on in this area?

And I beleive the info you are looking for is in the IPCC. I'd find it, but I dont really feel like doing your homework.

Click to expand...

I'VE done my homework. What's your excuse?? I'm hoping that you want to know the truth, so why haven't you chased down this one basic piece of information?? If GW/CC is so important to you, why don't you get all the education you possibly can on the subject?? That's what I did. I got educated WITHOUT making assumptions. I opened my mind to the possibility that I could have been wrong and truly studied this issue. Do you think that the scientists that are doing this research are above falsifying results to keep the research money flowing?? If you are, then you need to do a little research into how much falsification of results goes on for this very reason. There are a lot of climate researchers who disagree with the "accepted" scenario, so this isn't universally accepted, which means that either there's some bad research going on or we don't have all the facts together in one place.

Deuce said:

The site you linked makes a comparison of human-emitted CO2 to naturally-emitted CO2. Trouble is, they ignored naturally-absorbed CO2. It's ignoring half the carbon cycle. While natures gross emissions are quite high, the net emissions are near zero. (In fact, you might even say it's a negative number because nature absorbs a lot of mankind's CO2)

This error is similar to looking at Apple, Inc's revenue but ignoring all of its expenditures. The math is correct, but the number is ultimately meaningless.

They were hoping nobody would check their numbers.

Click to expand...

The point is that you can take CO2 out of the equation altogether and you couldn't accurately measure the impact on the greenhouse effect, since it's less than the annual statistical variation. You're trying to tell a guy pouring a cup of stale pop into a flooding river that he's making the problem worse.

faithful_servant said:

The point is that you can take CO2 out of the equation altogether and you couldn't accurately measure the impact on the greenhouse effect, since it's less than the annual statistical variation. You're trying to tell a guy pouring a cup of stale pop into a flooding river that he's making the problem worse.

Click to expand...

If that was the point, that wasn't a good link to post. How much has water vapor varied over the last 50 years? What is this annual variation?

faithful_servant said:

I'VE done my homework. What's your excuse?? I'm hoping that you want to know the truth, so why haven't you chased down this one basic piece of information?? If GW/CC is so important to you, why don't you get all the education you possibly can on the subject?? That's what I did. I got educated WITHOUT making assumptions. I opened my mind to the possibility that I could have been wrong and truly studied this issue. Do you think that the scientists that are doing this research are above falsifying results to keep the research money flowing?? If you are, then you need to do a little research into how much falsification of results goes on for this very reason. There are a lot of climate researchers who disagree with the "accepted" scenario, so this isn't universally accepted, which means that either there's some bad research going on or we don't have all the facts together in one place.

Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of climate researchers that disagree with the 'accepted' scenario. It's a handful. And that's normal in science.

http://m.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

And I believe I would be considered fairly educated in the realm of science, although climate science is not my area, and like most non-armchair scientists, I generally defer my opinion to experts, especially ones that have done a tremendous amount of work and gained massive consensus.

Deuce said:

If that was the point, that wasn't a good link to post. How much has water vapor varied over the last 50 years? What is this annual variation?

Click to expand...

Take a look at every graph that shows the impact of anthropogenic CO2, the annual variation they show is way more than the .117% that anthropogenic CO2 produces. Take some time to go through the links on that site and the references they use. Again, I'll admit that some of the articles it links to have an agenda, but they also use good foundational science to back up what they are saying. Take the time to get as close as possible to original source data and see if what it shows lines up with what you're being told. This isn't something that anyone should be simply accepting at face value from EITHER side. It's something that we should be looking into closely and seeing if it's correct. There are enough good researchers out there who question this theory to demand that the evidence be examined more closely and by people without a vested financial interest in one specific result (like researchers who are being paid to study climate losing their grant money if it's shown that man-made influences are lost in the natural variations and are insignificant).

Threegoofs said:

There isn't a lot of climate researchers that disagree with the 'accepted' scenario. It's a handful. And that's normal in science.

PNAS | Mobile

And I believe I would be considered fairly educated in the realm of science, although climate science is not my area, and like most non-armchair scientists, I generally defer my opinion to experts, especially ones that have done a tremendous amount of work and gained massive consensus.

Click to expand...

The lemming approach?? You can do better than that. Take the time to look at the basics of this issue. Not the computer models or projections, but the foundation of this science. If the results don't line up with that foundation, then it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet agrees, they are still wrong and we should asking why they failed to produce results that meet the bare minimum requirements of fitting the essential foundation of this science.

faithful_servant said:

The lemming approach?? You can do better than that. Take the time to look at the basics of this issue. Not the computer models or projections, but the foundation of this science. If the results don't line up with that foundation, then it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet agrees, they are still wrong and we should asking why they failed to produce results that meet the bare minimum requirements of fitting the essential foundation of this science.

Click to expand...

The lemming approach.

If thats what you call accepting the considered opinion and substantial expertise of thousands of scientists....

I guess I take the lemming approach every time I get in a plane.... because Bernoulli might not have been correct.

As far as the results lining up with the foundation, look around and figure out why the earth is currently experiencing its warmest decade ever recorded, and this was ACCURATELY predicted by scientists studying this issue decades ago.

Lemming approach. Please.

faithful_servant said:

The lemming approach?? You can do better than that. Take the time to look at the basics of this issue. Not the computer models or projections, but the foundation of this science. If the results don't line up with that foundation, then it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet agrees, they are still wrong and we should asking why they failed to produce results that meet the bare minimum requirements of fitting the essential foundation of this science.

Click to expand...

What?

There is a foundation?

Correlation = causation is a foundation?

And here I though it was a branch of political science.

Wow...

Threegoofs said:

The lemming approach.

If thats what you call accepting the considered opinion and substantial expertise of thousands of scientists....

I guess I take the lemming approach every time I get in a plane.... because Bernoulli might not have been correct.

As far as the results lining up with the foundation, look around and figure out why the earth is currently experiencing its warmest decade ever recorded, and this was ACCURATELY predicted by scientists studying this issue decades ago.

Lemming approach. Please.

Click to expand...

The thing is that the Bernoulli Effect lines up with known science. If someone told you that the Bernoulli Effect was caused by more air pressure on the longer surface of an airfoil, instead of less, you shouldn't believe that person no matter how many other people agree with him or how many letters are behind his name. The SCIENCE is what matters, not the scientists.

As far as the warmest decade ever recorded is concerned, the statement is utterly meaningless, since the scale of time we should be concerned with is far greater than the scale of time where we've measured temps. No, tree ring data doesn't work, nor do ice core samples.

faithful_servant said:

As far as the warmest decade ever recorded is concerned, the statement is utterly meaningless, since the scale of time we should be concerned with is far greater than the scale of time where we've measured temps. No, tree ring data doesn't work, nor do ice core samples.

Click to expand...

Ice core samples are probably the most reliable of proxies, and there is a great deal of room for error in them!

faithful_servant said:

The thing is that the Bernoulli Effect lines up with known science. If someone told you that the Bernoulli Effect was caused by more air pressure on the longer surface of an airfoil, instead of less, you shouldn't believe that person no matter how many other people agree with him or how many letters are behind his name. The SCIENCE is what matters, not the scientists.

As far as the warmest decade ever recorded is concerned, the statement is utterly meaningless, since the scale of time we should be concerned with is far greater than the scale of time where we've measured temps. No, tree ring data doesn't work, nor do ice core samples.

Click to expand...

And so you look to non-scientists to explain the science to you.

Makes sense.

And proxy data isn't good science because...you don't think so, yet it seems good enough to get prominent publication in PNAS, (or Nature or Science)which rejects 99% of papers.

jamesrage said:

What percentage of climate change do you believe or know is man made?

00.01% - 20% (please specify the percentage)
20.01% - 40% (please specify the percentage)
40.01% - 60% (please specify the percentage)
60.01% - 80% (please specify the percentage)
80.01% - 100% (please specify the percentage)
I don't know the percentage,but think/know man-made climate change is happening
I believe/know climate change is a 100% natural.
Not sure what kind of climate change is going on.
I do not believe in natural or man-made climate change.Climate never changes.


A poster suggested something like this in another thread.I am sure those who think or know climate change is real have good idea of how much climate change is caused by people.

Click to expand...

You can't have 7 billion people and counting on Earth and it not have some affect on environment, even local climate, any more than you could have 7 billion elephants or 7 billion whales or 7 billion pigeons on Earth without it having some affect. And anybody with any common sense and even a smidgeon of scientific education knows that climate has always been constantly changing and continues to constantly change on Planet Earth.

The math varies depending on who is doing the calculations, but most mathematicians agree that if the entire lifespan of the Earth was condensed into one 24-hour day, we humans would have been around for less than one second. We have accomplished a lot in that less than one second.

But we are multiplying at an alarming rate:
It is estimated that the world human population reached one billion for the first time in 1804, two billion in 1927, three billion in 1960 and we added another four billion in the next 50 years. Has the environmental impact affected the global planet? Perhaps, but it has been pretty negligible when you look at normal climate fluctuations that have been going on since the Earth first acquired an atmosphere.

In my opinion, the whole idea of controlling the climate is stupidity in its finest forms. Even if we managed to do it, we would almost certainly screw up more than we could ever accomplish on the positive side. Nature has managed to function quite nicely without us and will almost certainly do so in spite of us if we exercise just a little common sense.

I support devoting our collective effort to finding ways to adjust to and adapt to an inevitably changing climate and helping people to prosper so that they will have the wherewithal and incentive to care about the environment as only prosperous people do. It is the rich who are the most concerned for clean air, clean water, clean soil, aesthetic beauty, and the creatures we share the planet with.

Poor people care about keeping a roof over their head and enough food to live on. Whatever we do should be toward giving people opportunity, incentive, and ability to prosper as our first priority. Concern for the planet will then naturally follow.

From what I understand there has been an 18 year pause in global warming. The so called scientists have come up with dozens of excuses. Many have been debunked. If they can't figure out why the pause then they sure as heck can't know the cause with any certainty. Which leads me to believe the whole global warming hysteria is the only thing that is truly made by man. What continues to become clearer to me is the man-made hype group tend to support giving governments around the globe more power to tax for revenue while placing more regulations on their people. It's like giving them an excuse to tax the air you need to breathe. This also allows governments to pick the winners and losers in a global economy with an elite group of wealthy people an opportunity to take advantage of the situation for profit.

'So-called scientists'. That says it all. LOL.

Threegoofs said:

And so you look to non-scientists to explain the science to you.

Makes sense.

And proxy data isn't good science because...you don't think so, yet it seems good enough to get prominent publication in PNAS, (or Nature or Science)which rejects 99% of papers.

Click to expand...

Proxies are a tool - a poor substitute for directly procured measurements and observations.

As proxies go, Bristle Cone Pines are about as bad a proxy as you can get... even Mann and the warmists admitted this - that is until Mann's infamous Hockey Stick was hailed as the smoking gun and holy grail - holy writ to be worshipped and defended to the death.

Of course Mann's data is complete nonsense, and has been proven to be so - but far too many "scientists" had already climbed on board without due consideration, and were forced to defend the indefensible. That is not science, that is cronyism, pride, defending reputations, fraud, and just plain lousy science.

True science is open for all to try to falsify. Skeptics (skepticism being the essential ingredient in scientific inquiry) come along and say okay - give us your data, and we'll try to falsify it - if it holds up, fine; if not, it is out.

What do Mann and the fraudsters do?? They try to hide behind legalism, they delete data, engage in witchhunts and character assassination, rig the peer review process, on and on... we have irrefutable evidence that this is exactly what they did.

If their science was accurate, it would stand up to attempts to falisify it - but of course they know, and anyone who has any scientific training knows, the data they are presenting is fabricated junk.

That said - there are $Billions and $Billions to be had in the name of defending the orthodoxy. Anyone who doesn't play along is labeled a heretic, ostracized, and has their funding cut off. It pays to play along - whereas on the other hand, not playing along can cost a scientist dearly - and not just funding, it can cost them their job.

What the warmists/alarmists are doing is despicable.

wist43 said:

Proxies are a tool - a poor substitute for directly procured measurements and observations.

As proxies go, Bristle Cone Pines are about as bad a proxy as you can get... even Mann and the warmists admitted this - that is until Mann's infamous Hockey Stick was hailed as the smoking gun and holy grail - holy writ to be worshipped and defended to the death.

Of course Mann's data is complete nonsense, and has been proven to be so - but far too many "scientists" had already climbed on board without due consideration, and were forced to defend the indefensible. That is not science, that is cronyism, pride, defending reputations, fraud, and just plain lousy science.

True science is open for all to try to falsify. Skeptics (skepticism being the essential ingredient in scientific inquiry) come along and say okay - give us your data, and we'll try to falsify it - if it holds up, fine; if not, it is out.

What do Mann and the fraudsters do?? They try to hide behind legalism, they delete data, engage in witchhunts and character assassination, rig the peer review process, on and on... we have irrefutable evidence that this is exactly what they did.

If their science was accurate, it would stand up to attempts to falisify it - but of course they know, and anyone who has any scientific training knows, the data they are presenting is fabricated junk.

What the warmists/alarmists are doing is despicable.

Click to expand...

That's funny. Because the actual scientists- you know the guys 'who have scientific training' have repeatedly confirmed Mann's groundbreaking and seminal work.

Here, educate yourself if you dare:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

Threegoofs said:

That's funny. Because the actual scientists- you know the guys 'who have scientific training' have repeatedly confirmed Mann's groundbreaking and seminal work.

Here, educate yourself if you dare:
Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress

Click to expand...

It's been falsified - end of story.

Of course those whose reputations are harmed by the truth would circle the wagons. They are frauds - all of them.

wist43 said:

It's been falsified - end of story.

.

Click to expand...

LOL. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The rest of the worlds paleoclimate community and the editors of PNAS, Nature, and Science, plus the departmental heads and deans of hundreds of Universities in the world disagree....

Threegoofs said:

LOL. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The rest of the worlds paleoclimate community and the editors of PNAS, Nature, and Science, plus the departmental heads and deans of hundreds of Universities in the world disagree....

Click to expand...

The discussion was about the validity of Mann's Hockey Stick.
What the Scientific consensus is about is something very different.
I hope you accept NASA as a valid source. I know it is not a blog.
Climate Change: Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,

Click to expand...

So all of those Scientist and others mentioned agree that,

climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

Click to expand...

Not that Mann's Hockey stick is correct.

longview said:

The discussion was about the validity of Mann's Hockey Stick.
What the Scientific consensus is about is something very different.
I hope you accept NASA as a valid source. I know it is not a blog.
Climate Change: Consensus

So all of those Scientist and others mentioned agree that,

Not that Mann's Hockey stick is correct.

Click to expand...

Well, given that hundreds of scientists have validated, replicated and expanded upon Manns work as I demonstrated in a previous post, the poster claimed it was fraudluent...meaning that all over the world, there are hundreds of department chairs who are, apparently, knowingly ignoring scientific fraud in their departments.

Alternatively, and much more logically, the poster;s assertion is a pile of rubbish.

Threegoofs said:

Actually, the factual analysis is quite clear and always has been. It's in the scientific journals.

View attachment 67172240

Click to expand...

Yet this poll is not exclusively a question of whether climate change is happening at all, but also a question of whether it is affected by humans.

That pie-chart simply shows that only a few people are blind enough to deny that the climate is changing.

The Mark said:

Yet this poll is not exclusively a question of whether climate change is happening at all, but also a question of whether it is affected by humans.

That pie-chart simply shows that only a few people are blind enough to deny that the climate is changing.

Click to expand...

Well, for that you need other studies. Oreskes 2006, Anderegg 2010, Cook, 2012, and others shoudl suffice to answer your question. And if you doubt that, we now have papers published in Nature that describe the reasons that discuss why the public doesnt actually percieve the consensus, and there is no equivoxation among the journal editors that this consensus absolutely exists. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1720.html