Ajax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 12:01pm:

You may have missed this one.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 12:05pm:


Note the peer reviewed bit...

U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

Ajax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 12:28pm:

Climate scientists use computers as well...!!!




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

Ajax wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

I am sure all of the climate scientists and organizations I have just quoted are privy to that information before making their assessments.




The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 11:34am:



Forgotten the questions about how many societies gave their members a vote and how many made a unilateral decision?

"The only study which actually asked the scientists was done by the American Meteorological Society in 2013. It showed that only 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human.” Among professional forecasters, the number was closer to 38%.  No group came anywhere close to 97%."

https://realclimatescience.com/the-52-consensus/

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 12:47pm:



You men like those 90 odd climate scientists that made the latest SR5 report?

It said in part -

"Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013)."

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter1.pdf


Re: The IPCC moves the goalposts on Climate Change
Reply #6 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 4:09pm Quote
Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
They predict around 2040.



Yes petal And what happens when it cools? See I can make predictions too. Wink

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
Your selective quote from a footnote from a report about a report does not take into account what they are explaining.



Oh dear. I suggest you go back and look at the SPM for AR5. Does making the same "mistake" count as not knowing what they are saying?

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
The concept of the Anthropocene can be linked to the aspiration of the Paris Agreement.



And the Anthropocene, much to the dismay of the IPCC, Will Steffen et al, does not exist. It was a thought bubble they tried to influence onto scientists.

"Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet.

They are calling it the Meghalayan Age, the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide. "

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44868527

This was announced back in July well before the IPCC blurb.They just couldn't let it drop. Poor Will Steffen.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
Although rates of change in the Anthropocene
are necessarily assessed over much shorter periods than those used to calculate long-term baseline rates of change, and therefore present challenges for direct comparison, they are nevertheless striking.



Yes. Ignore the longer term data it can look so much more impressive over shorter time scales. Over the longer term the hiccups get lost in the noise.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
The rise in global CO2 concentration since 2000 is about 20 ppm/decade, which is up to 10 times
faster than any sustained rise in CO2 during the past 800,000 years (Lüthi et al., 2008; Bereiter et al., 2015).



And yet that ignores the plant stomata data.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:23pm:
Since 1970 the global average temperature
has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000
years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA 2016, Marcott et al. 2013).



HMM Marcott 2013? Now what was it he said?

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

I believe "since 1970" is in the last 100 odd years.

So the poor climate scientists who prepared the report didn't know what they were talking about.

But you still believe them.

Johnnie wrote on Dec 8^th, 2018 at 3:42pm:


That data is so obviously way off the natural cycle that even Lee can't deny the 400 ppm + figures.

So ... what does Lee do about the undeniable data? He switches to his MO that the data is not actually related to the record high temperatures that we are experiencing.

Deny, deny, deny, deflect. That's his MO. 

The biggest mystery of all remains ... Why?

Why does Lee continuously make himself into a laughing stock?

Why?