The importance of public perception of scientific consensus has been established in a number of studies (e.g., here, here and here). Perhaps nothing underscores its importance more than the strenuous efforts that opponents of climate action have exerted in attacking consensus. For over two decades, fossil fuel interests and right-wing ideologues have sought to cast doubt on the consensus: Consequently, it comes as no surprise that our paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature has come under intense attack. Since published 6 months ago, nearly 200 articles have been published online attacking our paper. The attacks have come in the form of blog posts, Youtube videos, cartoons, papers, reports and conspiracy theories. The most entertaining conspiracy theories are Christopher Monckton's suggestion that the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters was created for the purpose of publishing our paper and Anthony Watts' accusation that Dana Nuccitelli has vested interests in oil. Attacks on any scientific consensus, whether it be human-caused global warming or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibit five characteristics of science denial. Similarly, the attacks against our paper have exhibited the same five characteristics. Some of these characteristics are on offer in an opinion piece by Anthony Cox published in the Newcastle Herald. I was granted the opportunity to publish a response in the Newcastle Herald, which was published today: OPINION: Climate change deniers use tobacco tactics I point out that just as there are many lines of evidence for human-caused global warming, there are similarly a number of independent indicators of an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. This replication is found even within our paper, which finds a 97% consensus whether rating the abstracts of each paper or inviting scientists to rate their own papers: As the evidence piled up, overwhelming agreement developed among climate scientists. A 2009 survey of Earth scientists found that among actively researching climate scientists, more than 97 per cent agreed that humans were changing global temperatures. A 2010 study found that among climate scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research, there was 97-98 per cent consensus. I was part of a team that examined 21 years of climate research, identifying all papers stating a position on human-caused global warming. Some papers explicitly said humans were causing global warming. Others were more specific, quantifying just how much of global warming was caused by humans. Among papers giving a position on the topic, 97.1 per cent agreed humans were causing global warming. Replication is the heart of scientific research. We checked our results by asking the actual scientists who authored the climate papers to rate their own research. As a result 1200 scientists rated their own papers. Among papers self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2 per cent endorsed the consensus. If there is a consilience of evidence and overwhelming agreement among climate scientists, how does one cast doubt on the consensus? By employing the 5 characteristics of denial, tactics honed by the tobacco industry in the 1970s and now adopted by climate deniers: Consensus matters. When people correctly perceive that scientists agree about climate change, they're more likely to support climate action. Consequently, those who oppose policy to mitigate climate change have sought to cast doubt on the consensus for over two decades. This is done with the same techniques of the tobacco industry and right-wing ideologues who denied smoking causes cancer. Fake experts are invoked to portray the impression of ongoing scientific debate. Evidence is cherry-picked and any inconvenient data is ignored. Just as the tobacco industry demanded unreasonable levels of proof that smoking caused cancer, opponents of climate action employ the same technique of unrealistic expectations. The same tactics are on offer in Anthony Cox's opinion piece "Politics muddy global warming debate" (Herald 27/11). Mr Cox magics away the overwhelming scientific consensus via "unrealistic expectations". He ignores any paper that doesn't specify the percentage of global warming humans have caused. Thousands of papers endorsing the consensus conveniently disappear. Statements such as "global warming caused by greenhouse gases emitted into the air is a result of the human activities" or "accumulating evidence points to an anthropogenic 'fingerprint' on the global climate change that has occurred in the last century" do not endorse the consensus, according to Mr Cox. Our understanding of climate change is based on many lines of evidence. The result is an overwhelming scientific consensus, observed in a number of independent studies. However, those who reject climate science persistently muddy the waters in the same manner right-wing ideologues and the tobacco industry denied the science linking smoking with cancer. http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1939492/opinion-climate-change-deniers-use-tobacco-tactics/
madoff sounded the same. here is the reality you have no idea if co2 causes warming or cooling and therefore an even smaller chance of knowing what man made co2 is doing. and there is no consensus that man made co2 causes warming on earth. http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003). And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)." So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles? Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find? Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
Jem, will you ever admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Earthâs climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change. This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earthâs orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earthâs surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns. A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that: The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase (Figure 2).
Oh wait.... this is an article by complete alarmist John Cook trying to defend his indefensible paper by attacking other sources that actually provide factual data and disagree with his absurd assertions. What a complete joke! John Cook is a cartoonist with no relevant scientitic job experience. Why is any scientific publication accepting papers from a cartoonist? And why would any scientist who is not a complete joke peer review a paper from Cook? John Cook has no credibility.
What a coincidence, futurecunts is a heat and air installer with no scientific job experience. Neither does futurecunts. Two peas in a pod.
I point out that just as there are many lines of evidence for human-caused global warming, there are similarly a number of independent indicators of an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. This replication is found even within our paper, which finds a 97% consensus whether rating the abstracts of each paper or inviting scientists to rate their own papers: As the evidence piled up, overwhelming agreement developed among climate scientists. A 2009 survey of Earth scientists found that among actively researching climate scientists, more than 97 per cent agreed that humans were changing global temperatures. A 2010 study found that among climate scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research, there was 97-98 per cent consensus. I was part of a team that examined 21 years of climate research, identifying all papers stating a position on human-caused global warming. Some papers explicitly said humans were causing global warming. Others were more specific, quantifying just how much of global warming was caused by humans. Among papers giving a position on the topic, 97.1 per cent agreed humans were causing global warming. Replication is the heart of scientific research. We checked our results by asking the actual scientists who authored the climate papers to rate their own research. As a result 1200 scientists rated their own papers. Among papers self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2 per cent endorsed the consensus. (Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action) Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana Academia de Ciencias FÃsicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Académie des Sciences, France Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada Academy of Athens Academy of Science of Mozambique Academy of Science of South Africa Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy of Sciences of Moldova Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science African Academy of Sciences Albanian Academy of Sciences Amazon Environmental Research Institute American Academy of Pediatrics American Anthropological Association American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American College of Preventive Medicine American Fisheries Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society American Public Health Association American Quaternary Association American Society for Microbiology American Society of Agronomy American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Australian Academy of Science Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Institute of Physics Australian Marine Sciences Association Australian Medical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Bangladesh Academy of Sciences Botanical Society of America Brazilian Academy of Sciences British Antarctic Survey Bulgarian Academy of Sciences California Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Canadian Association of Physicists Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Geophysical Union Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Society of Soil Science Canadian Society of Zoologists Caribbean Academy of Sciences views Center for International Forestry Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences Crop Science Society of America Cuban Academy of Sciences Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters Ecological Society of America Ecological Society of Australia Environmental Protection Agency European Academy of Sciences and Arts European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society European Science Foundation Federation of American Scientists French Academy of Sciences Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia Geological Society of London Georgian Academy of Sciences German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Indian National Science Academy Indonesian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK InterAcademy Council International Alliance of Research Universities International Arctic Science Committee International Association for Great Lakes Research International Council for Science International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences International Research Institute for Climate and Society International Union for Quaternary Research International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Islamic World Academy of Sciences Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Kenya National Academy of Sciences Korean Academy of Science and Technology Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Latin American Academy of Sciences Latvian Academy of Sciences Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina National Academy of Sciences of Armenia National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka National Academy of Sciences, United States of America National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Association of Geoscience Teachers National Association of State Foresters National Center for Atmospheric Research National Council of Engineers Australia National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Research Council National Science Foundation Natural England Natural Environment Research Council, UK Natural Science Collections Alliance Network of African Science Academies New York Academy of Sciences Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters Oklahoma Climatological Survey Organization of Biological Field Stations Pakistan Academy of Sciences Palestine Academy for Science and Technology Pew Center on Global Climate Change Polish Academy of Sciences Romanian Academy Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain Royal Astronomical Society, UK Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters Royal Irish Academy Royal Meteorological Society (UK) Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research Royal Scientific Society of Jordan Royal Society of Canada Royal Society of Chemistry, UK Royal Society of the United Kingdom Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences Science and Technology, Australia Science Council of Japan Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics Scripps Institution of Oceanography Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Slovak Academy of Sciences Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Society for Ecological Restoration International Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of American Foresters Society of Biology (UK) Society of Biology, UK Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America Sudan Academy of Sciences Sudanese National Academy of Science Tanzania Academy of Sciences The Wildlife Society (international) Turkish Academy of Sciences Uganda National Academy of Sciences Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution World Association of Zoos and Aquariums World Federation of Public Health Associations World Forestry Congress World Health Organization World Meteorological Organization Zambia Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
as a so called greenhouse gas... nasa says it is the most efficient coolant in the atmosphere. Note... this science.nasa.gov... where the real science gets gone... you quote the whores from climate.nasa.gov http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â Thatâs what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earthâs magnetic field. (On the âRichter Scale of Solar Flares,â X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. âThe thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,â says Russell. âIt began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.â For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
If it's so efficient at cooling, then why has a century of its increase coincided with the melting of glaciers?