Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

Yes, history does reveal times which science gets it wrong, and your point is?

Here are some arguments, and rebuttals, and counter rebuttals that you, as a meteorolgist, I should think would find interesting:

( source, https://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm ) note: hover cursor over texts in places for hyperlinks to their sources ( on the source link above, the hyperlinked texts should appear in blue, if you are using windows )



In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser's rebuttal
Benny Peiser repeated Oreskes survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
The Viscount Monckton of Benchley's rebuttal
Despite Peiser's retraction, the same argument was repeated by the Viscount Monckton of Benchley (and plagiarised by Schulte). Here are the five studies Monckton claims Oreskes should've included in her survey as rejecting the consensus position:

• Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions (Ammann 2003) finds a correlation between solar activity and temperature. However, the temperature reconstructions used end in the mid-20th century before the modern global warming trend and don't address the consensus position that warming over the past 50 years is primarily anthropogenic. However, Amman has published a more recent study examining more up-to-date temperature records, concluding "although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century" (Ammann 2007).
• Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since The Mid-17th Century (Reid 1997) finds a link between solar variability and climate change, concluding that "solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955". Considering CO2 forcing before 1955 was much lower while solar forcing was much greater due to increasing solar activity, this conclusion only serves to reinforce the consensus position. More on the sun...
• Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual Report (Gerhard 2000) is non-peer reviewed. Oreske's survey only included peer reviewed studies. This is even conceded by Schulte.
• Atmospheric Greenhouse-Effect in the Context of Global Climate-Change (Kondratyev 1995) is a review, not an article - it doesn't actually include any research but reviews other studies. Oreskes' survey only included articles, not reviews.
• Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties (Fernau 1993) is another review, not an article, and is found in the Social Science Citation Index. Oreskes sampled articles only from the Science Citation Index.

 

I am not sure what all that is supposed to prove.

However, I thought this statement was interesting. According to Golem who considers himself the resident expert on peer review, they do no review for accuracy or agreement. They could completely disagree and would still pass the peer review.

 

I know the definition of equilibrium perfectly well, I am a Chemist afterall.

I was under the impression, however, that you as a fellow scientist (a Meteorologist) would be interested in correct scientific terminology? Maybe I was mistaken?

Here is a short intro into the difference between equilibrium and steady state:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshe...quilibria/8.5.5:_Equilibrium_and_Steady_State

Might be an opportunity to learn, remember, scientific facts don't care what side of the political fence you are on.

 

See if they don't answer your question here:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

and in my other reply

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rs-or-believers.578339/page-5#post-1072049588

 

You quoted from The Viscount Monckton of Benchley's rebuttal

 

A definition is not a scientific fact. It is a definition and definitions are frequently used differently by different professions.

 

did not change anything.

 

I venture to suggest that economics is an art (parading as a science), and chemistry is a science, and an artist's concept of 'equlibrium' and a scientists' concept of it may differ.

 

If you want to stay uninformed, be my guest. But, don't claim to be scientist when don't want to acknowledge scientific definitions, only because of the person presenting them is on the other side of the political spectrum.

But, let me give it one last try: In equilibrium, the forward and reverse process are the same process, just occurring in opposite directions. In the case of heat balance of the earth, this is clearly not the case, because energy in through visible light absorption from the sun, is a different process than energy out through IR radiation into space.

If it were equilibrium, the earth would radiate back visible light into space, after absorption. Clearly, that is not the case, so the equilibrium of that process lies far to the side of the absorbed light.

 

well, either there is a consensus among scientists that AGW/ACC is the predominant view, or it isn't.

Based on what I'm reading, it is.

All I'm getting from you is that without a direct survey, never mind the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed papers that address AGW, (they weren't cherry picked, as you claim ) support it, you are going to wait until someone does precisely the kind of survey that will make you, personally, happy.

And, while we are waiting, AGW is destroying the earth.

Wonderful.

 

In science, what scientists "believe" is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is what they can prove.

 

What the science says is that the temperature of the global atmosphere at the surface has been increasing over the last 200 years or so coming out of the "little ice age," and that the increase was slightly larger since the early 1900s -- all with a very high degree of certainty although the precise temperature has considerable relative margin, and measurement techniques were very poor until about the 1950s. That this rise was caused by man has a very low certainty; that man was likely a major cause has a fairly high degree of certainty. That this man-produced CO2 generated global warming will be catastrophic is under considerable contention and has a very low degree of certainty -- nowhere close to the certainty of quantum physics and light years away from the certainty of gravitation and thermodynamics.

How does AGW simultaneously produce gigantic rainfalls like in a hurricane and droughts???? Why is the correlation of global warming with hurricanes and droughts so abysmal? The most intense hurricane to hit the mainland was in 1935. The next top three were in 1962, 1969, and 1992. The one causing the most deaths was in 1900. By far the worst drought in America was in the 1930s. Why are the current fires blamed on drought since California has not been in an official drought for years? The answer to the latter is a standard modus operandi: anything bad is caused by AGW (logic and rationale need not apply).

 

In equals out.

Why not simply ask them?

And they have not "proved" AGW as a major contributor to earth's warming.

 

Because avg temp keeps going up.

We may be in a natural warming cycle. We're exacerbating that with greenhouse gases.

 

Yes, China is down by the same percentage. Emerging economies like India and Indonesia are up, however.

 

We are in a natural warming cycle. Anything beyond that is a guess.

 

The simple question can be answered with simple snark:

Ipsos/Factos: "Hello Mr. Esteemed Scientist. What do you think about AGW?"

Mr. Scientist: "I published a paper in 2014. Please read it." *click*

I can't go through life dismissing everything that disagrees with me as a political CT. Sometimes a scientist is just a scientist.

 

No, it's not. It's being measured and tested.

 

So rather than answering a simple question which might take ten minutes at most. They dismiss it with a statement which will probably take me hours to check. My time is just as important as that scientist. Spending ten minutes answering a question is not going to change the fate of the world in spite of their perceived self importance.

 

How tested? In order to test it, they would have to compare what happened against what did not happen.

 

Simple really. Why do you think climate science is immune to the history of scientific beliefs?

 

There's no such thing as a scientific belief.

The only thing that changes known science, is better science. The entire scientific process is trying to disprove previous scientific understandings.

It's nauseating how few understand even the most rudimentary parts of the scientific process.

 

How do they measure it?
The earths temperature went up a bit over a degree in the past hundred years. Maybe it is only me, but somehow I do not find that to be much of a threat. Out of that degree, they don't really know how much CO2 might have added. They have made all sorts of calculations, but there is really no way to know for sure.

 

I'm not a climate scientist. I'm a regular person who trusts professionals. I can add 2 + 2, though.

Here's what a one degree rise in avg temp means:

Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm).

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/

 

Thank god we've finally silenced the creationists. I had my fill of "It's only a theory" to last 10 lifetimes.