Global Warming Consensus?

[fsol]

I read the article about linking levels of CO₂ to temperature rises. I have read in several places that, historically, CO₂ has lagged temperature rise by several centuries. Is this a lie or an erroneous reading of the data.

This is true. Other people will no doubt explain it better but the idea is that, in the past where these CO2 lags have been found, the heating of the planet was likely due to the Milankovic cycle, which I think is orbital variations of Earth around the Sun. So every 100,000 years or so you get periods of heating and then periods of cooling.

The CO2 lags the heating by about 800 years. Apparently this is about the length of time it would take for the ocean "flush out" the CO2 it had stored during the previous cold cycle. So planet warms up, oceans release CO2. As the CO2 levels increase the CO2 starts to contribute to the warming trend as well. So, although the heating is not initiated by a CO2 increase, the CO2 still contributes once it turns up.

The situation we have now is an increase of CO2 contributing to an increase in temperature in much the same way that it has done in the past. The difference is what the cause of the temperature change is attributed to, but the effect of the CO2 (more CO2 -> higher temperature) is the same.


*waits to get pulled up for being sloppy*

 

[fsol]

Yawn.
Nonsense? Do your own google search, varoche. Reply with your results.

Show that I've missed anything that is roughly "surveys on global warming (limited to) scientists and/or engineers". Otherwise, reply back that I did exactly what I said I was going to do.

Here is the link to the survey I noted as seeming to show how incredibly stupid some really smart people are

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/

it is linked to in fsol's post also

timlambert.org does show up in firefox it's just really, really slow.

I like that survey. "Lets do a survey of climatologists and provide practically no safeguards against cheating at all." Some people seemed to lap it up though judging from one of your other links.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Actually this is an interesting question. Like many other questions asked on this forum, there are serious efforts to spin into another direction where sacrcasm and derision rule. I fall prey to that sometimes.

Yes, here is a survey. Quoting from it -
A substantial number of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree with the assertion that human activity is causing or imminently will cause substantial global warming, a November 2006 survey found.
Conducted by the nonpartisan National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP), the survey asked 793 environmental scientists and environmental practitioners about human effects on climate variance.
The survey results contradict assertions by environmental activist groups that "the debate is over" and that all or virtually all scientists agree humans are causing a dramatic and harmful change in the Earth's climate.

I've done computer support work in the meteorology/climatology field for 25 years and I've never heard of the "National Registry of Environmental Professionals" before reading this post. There are a least half a dozen people from the United States Postal Service on their "Professionals" page. Does the United States Postal Service conduct climatological research? There's someone from the Internal Revenue Service. And someone from Kraft Foods. Even someone from Subaru of Indiana. Several people from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. These people are climate scientists???

 

[rockoon]

So no evidence of a consensus after all?

 

[mhaze]

So no evidence of a consensus after all?

No.

 

[IXP]

So no evidence of a consensus after all?

Damn. I cannot find a single survey of scientists stating that they believe in quantum mechanics. I guess there must not be a consensus.

IXP

 

[Wolverine]

A. This is an incredibly stupid survey which shows how really stupid some really smart people can be.

Here is the link to the survey I noted as seeming to show how incredibly stupid some really smart people are

You'd accidentally chopped off the h in http, twice.

timlambert.org does show up in firefox it's just really, really slow.

It's no faster in IE.

 

[mhaze]

You'd accidentally chopped off the h in http, twice.
It's no faster in IE.

Weird. Not me doing that, it's just a cut and paste....but it's easy enough to use the preview post function and be sure it's right, sorry

 

[Big Al]

I've done computer support work in the meteorology/climatology field for 25 years and I've never heard of the "National Registry of Environmental Professionals" before reading this post.

You've provided computer support for climatology for 25 year? Oh well, they's guys may be liars. However, a swift Google produced http://www.nrep.org/ apart from a Wikipedia entry and 10,398 other pages. Are they all rubbish?

These guys do exist in one form or another, or people at least believe they do. They may all be deluded imbeciles, but please don't trash the poster; that's a cheap shot. Trash the NREP instead.

 

[Big Al]

You've provided computer support for climatology for 25 year? Oh well, they's guys may be liars.

Oh, for the FSM's sake! I'm playing the same bloody game! I don't want to kill the f*&king messenger!

<sanity mode>OK, now. Please let's not play pissing-up-the-wall games about who we are or aren't, OK?

I am an aerospace electronics engineer with 30 years' experience in the space industry. I know a lot about the past in space exploration, but I have no real idea about what's going to happen tomorrow. All I can do is guess.

Right, my kimono is open. Anyone else?

 

[CapelDodger]

Whereas, of course, Al Gore ...

I spied the first Al Gore! Ten points to me! Wheeeee.

... is much better qualified to pass judgement. Why not attack the message, rather than the messenger?

Unintentional irony in the same post - ten points more!

What's wrong with these people's scientific understanding? Somebody tell me!

Who knows what they understand? All we can go on is what they say.

 

[CapelDodger]

Unintentional irony in the same post - ten points more!

I may have been a bit ahead of myself in claiming the "unintentional". I blame the drink, so I do.

 

[CapelDodger]

So no evidence of a consensus after all?

Plenty of evidence. That's why you're having to cling to a shrinking minority. Perhaps you're equating "evidence" with "proof"? It's a common mistake.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

This thread seems to have gone off into the weeds. I suppose I should have expected it.

I am not (at this point) even asking whether the consensus really exists or not. I'm asking for a precise definition of what the consensus actually is. Surely it's not too much to ask for a definition of something that is said to exist.

Schneibster's link does state this:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

However, that statement alone is far too vague to base policy off of. So is there more to it? I have read parts of the IPCC report but it's unclear how much of it represents "consensus" instead of isolated reports.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You've provided computer support for climatology for 25 year? Oh well, they's guys may be liars. However, a swift Google produced http://www.nrep.org/ apart from a Wikipedia entry and 10,398 other pages. Are they all rubbish?

These guys do exist in one form or another, or people at least believe they do. They may all be deluded imbeciles, but please don't trash the poster; that's a cheap shot. Trash the NREP instead.

Big Al, speaking of cheapshots... I clearly did not deny that this organization exists. My point was that NREP is an organization that has few, if any, climatologists/meteorologists/oceanographers in it. It appears to be an organization for people who work in pollution/toxic waste monitoring/mitigation. Therefore, to imply that survey was a survey of scientists working in the climate field, or even of people who have any special knowledge of climate issues, is dishonest.

 

[mhaze]

This thread seems to have gone off into the weeds. I suppose I should have expected it.

I am not (at this point) even asking whether the consensus really exists or not. I'm asking for a precise definition of what the consensus actually is. Surely it's not too much to ask for a definition of something that is said to exist.

- Dr. Trintignant

Right. Of course the consensus is said to exist in whatever form and fashion that person stating there is a consensus serves to benefit from in the moment. Fodder for politicos. And any attempt to clarify even what that means is met with increasing noise levels, changing the subject, all the usuals.

To get a quick look at the various organizations and their statements, including those which do and do not explicitly use the word consensus, look here.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

This thread seems to have gone off into the weeds. I suppose I should have expected it.

I am not (at this point) even asking whether the consensus really exists or not. I'm asking for a precise definition of what the consensus actually is. Surely it's not too much to ask for a definition of something that is said to exist.

There doesn't appear to be a consensus on what the word "consensus" means. Wikipedia says that it is "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community" while The Random House Dictionary says that it is "1. a general agreement or harmony; 2. majority of opinion". A majority opinion clearly does not require agreement among all members of a group.

 

[mhaze]

There doesn't appear to be a consensus on what the word "consensus" means. Wikipedia says that it is "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community" while The Random House Dictionary says that it is "1. a general agreement or harmony; 2. majority of opinion". A majority opinion clearly does not require agreement among all members of a group.

From the dozen or so professional organizations that I've belonged to, some scientific, I only rarely recall being asked or polled on a subject that later became a platform. More typically the high ups would just do whatever they wanted to do or say and no one really cared, not that they could do anything about it if they did care. A person could volunteer or be nominated for a committee, etc.

It would be interesting to inquire among those organizations which do state they have a consensus view, or for others who just say that they agree with the IPCC report, how exactly did they figure out that their membership desired or would abide by that?

 

[Wolverine]

Weird. Not me doing that, it's just a cut and paste....but it's easy enough to use the preview post function and be sure it's right, sorry

No need to apologize, I just wanted to make sure a minor bout of pilot error wasn't fueling a deeper disagreement between posters.

I am, though, somewhat confused by your citation choices. How carefully have you examined them? Not trying to be a jerk here, so please don't get me wrong (I'm interested in the involved sciences and their methodologies, not political spiel, policy formulation, or ill-tempered confrontations) -- I just don't understand why you find seemingly fringe claims more compelling than, say, those of mainstream science, such as NOAA, NAS, EPA, NASA, et al.

Would you be willing to help me better understand your position?

 

[Wolverine]

This thread seems to have gone off into the weeds. I suppose I should have expected it.

Probably so. It's damned hard to avoid, though, especially given the subject matter.