Roberthe
65bef4ed-193e-4417-9c97-bdaa6305a8fb.jpg

Robert, here's where we'll put some of your great writing.

Robert was responding to a poster who claimed he was just a skeptic, not a climate denier:

If you acknowledge you might be wrong then you're not a denier. In that I acknowledge, as do the vast majority of climatologists, that I might be wrong as well we share overlapping territory. I have seen no compelling reason to accept sunspot activity as a possible climate driver; if you have solid links I'm ready to look at them dispassionately. One of the major problems with any attempt to correlate temperature and activity is that our current cycle, Cycle 24, is relatively low while our current decade is quite hot. As for the Milankovitch cycles, they consistently are one of the major drivers of climate change. However, the indication is that we entered one of its cooling trends approximately 6000 years ago so we need to look elsewhere for the currently observed increase in temperature.
On the other hand, that CO2 and CH4 both are greenhouse gases was something worked out by Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th century, independently of any discussion of global warming. Either you are prepared to contradict their studies (and multitudes of others' since) or you need to accept that GHGs do have a demonstrable warming effect, at which time the argument becomes one of degree rather than of kind. There are many climatologists - such as Lindzen, Curry, and Pielke, all of whom I have a high degree of respect for - who, while accepting AGW, disagree on the degree of the effect, often limiting any temperature increase to ~1° C.


For those actually interested in the topic, the study can be found at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748…. For those of you other inclined the following is the abstract.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


First, homo sapiens did not exist 500,000 years ago so what is happening is unprecedented for our frame of reference. Second, the article refers to "unprecedented change"; from what we currently understand there never has been a more rapid rate of temperature increase. The last notable excursion, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago, took 20,000 years for surface temperatures to increase by 11° F; we're on track to reach that level in 200 years, fully 2 orders of magnitude faster. If that doesn't qualify as "unprecedented change" I am at a loss to imagine what does.

.

.

Add a New Comment
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License