I have to admit, it's technically a malformed statement.

AWG is a Boolean proposition, but even that is ill-defined. If the question is the net effect that humans have had on the planet, then maybe the question is whether that effect is positive or negative. If this were the question, we know with over 99% probability that the value is above zero. The more accurate proposition is if we've detected warming due to humans, which is what I think the 95% is representing. Exactly how the thresholds are defined gets into Bayesian stuff I never studied.

The age of the universe is a real number, and we know it to be 13.7 +/- 0.1 billion years according to some sources, but the error might range up to 0.7 by some other sources. So the question is "probability of what?" If the universe is 10.0 years old, were we then wrong? That wouldn't make any sense.

9/24/2013 4:47:11 PM

No room for doubt in climate change

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/opinion/shepherd-climate-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

[Edited on September 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2013 12:23:17 PM

Hard to take that stance entirely serious when they can't explain the 15+ year pause in warming. At least they finally admit it exists, but they still have no valid explanation for it.

9/27/2013 8:05:17 AM

here's a possible explanation for you:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

9/27/2013 8:37:17 AM

^that's some pretty weak sauce right there. the bottom is dropping out of the global warming myth and these "scientists" are grasping at straws.

9/27/2013 9:13:38 AM

Ignore A (yowilly), he is only a troll.

4 Climate Myths You'll Hear This Week
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc

Quote :

"Myth 1: Global warming has stopped."

9/27/2013 9:27:47 AM

Quote :

"Hard to take that stance entirely serious when they can't explain the 15+ year pause in warming."

That misses the point pretty badly, and it shows a rhetorical game being played. Let's say that the "scientists" (whoever that is) have two choices in order to argue with you:
A: there exist major natural temperature cycles relative to the human contribution up to 2013
B: this natural temperature cycles is small compared to the human contribution

In your statement you've assumed B is what you're arguing against. Then as your conclusions you're arguing that the "scientists" are wrong because the data as you've interpreted it argues for A (although it actually doesn't).

Again, the absolute most extreme case is that A is true. Why does any of this matter? What the "skeptics" (which is also a pretty awful categorization) get out of this is that climate models aren't very good.

It honestly doesn't matter. Our climate models could be good or bad, and the impact of CO2 concentrations on temperature in 2100 will be the same. This is because CO2 does not influence temperature in a subtle way. It influences temperature by dumping a shitload of heat into the biosphere.

[Edited on September 27, 2013 at 9:36 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2013 9:35:36 AM

is there is anything else that has 95% certainty from all of the experts in their field that has this many skeptics?

9/27/2013 9:47:06 AM

evolution?

9/27/2013 10:03:29 AM

I believe that the 95% figure is that over half of the observed warming is due to human factors.

So it could be on the edge of that 95%, and the natural cycle is a cosine wave with an amplitude exactly equal to the present value of the temperature change from humans.

A cosine plus an exponential.

9/27/2013 10:21:29 AM

lol the media might report that 95 percent believe in this global warming thing, but that's because the left wing media and the left wing academia have decided that there needs to be an overarching environmental catastrophe always on the verge of becoming decimating (but never actually decimating since global warming IS NOT HAPPENING.)

[Edited on September 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2013 10:54:41 AM

Although "environmental catastrophe" doesn't have any specific definition, there is basically no science that says this is happening now. Global warming is about what will happen in the future.

9/27/2013 11:30:00 AM

my point exactly. "oh it's not a problem now, but TOTALLY will be in the future..." (even though the globe is decidedly NOT warming.)



[Edited on September 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2013 12:19:30 PM

Do you have any idea how little sense that makes? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are releasing more into the atmosphere. Very realistic resource estimates could put the concentration at 3-4x what it has historically been, which we know very well because we got that info from ice cores. We also know what amount of heat that will add to the Earth because we measure its absorption spectrum. What the fuck do you not understand about this? Not a single thing in that argument relies on the present rate of change of temperature (which lacks empirical definition in this conversation anyway).

And the emissions scenario is something that keeps getting revised up due to the totally obvious reason of China. Once they're finished, we have India and Africa left to increase emissions. Human population isn't declining either.

Perhaps the most depressing thing is that you really don't have a point. I'm fine with you being fine with business-as-usual 2080 temperature scenarios. But your argument is "we don't know", and that's even better to you, isn't it? If we assume that we don't have predictive power for global events, then we just live our lives going with the flow. If you you're agnostic to future climate, then you don't have to shape narratives around it. Physics is for predicting things like a ball falling, in front of you. If a course of events is materializing around the entire population of Earth, then it's worthy of denial. After all, our brains was designed to reason about things right in front of us. Surely we'll get something wrong applying that to big things.

9/27/2013 1:03:00 PM

A is trolling, A only trolls.

Either dismiss him entirely or make fun of him

9/27/2013 1:03:37 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/dont-be-fooled-latest-attempt-to-discredit-climate-skeptics-flops/?intcmp=latestnews

9/27/2013 9:07:26 PM

Environmental folks will also feel uneasy when they find out that rainwater is naturally acidic (notice on the Wikipedia pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain there are no sources cited in the human activity section).

9/27/2013 9:23:59 PM

speaking of cherry-picking data, here is the average temperature since the last ice age...



you people simultaneously say that the flat temperatures over the past decade and a half are just because "we aren't looking at the big picture"

well how about you look at the big picture. the globe is actually getting COOLER if you look at all of the data.

9/28/2013 8:52:06 AM

TIL: the average temperature of Earth is well below freezing

9/28/2013 2:04:52 PM

you didn't know that?

9/28/2013 2:53:15 PM

Quote :

"The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth "

[Edited on September 28, 2013 at 3:02 PM. Reason : #]

9/28/2013 3:01:43 PM

that's just liberal propaganda. It's actually below zero in Charlotte right now!

9/28/2013 6:11:57 PM

It could be a damn part-time job debunking the bullshit ITT.

Particularly funny to me is the R.B. Alley Ice core data posted above (as others have all ready laughed off). Alley is a pretty big proponent of ABRUPT climate change. That is change over a matter of a decade or two, rather than closer to a century as the IPCC usually projects. Pretty scary shit and probably more "alarmist" than the average climate scientist.

9/29/2013 1:23:15 PM

I watched this.



He gave a vexing graph at the point 2:02. I managed to look it up online, and more-or-less, this is what he was using:

http://planetsave.com/2011/12/22/global-warming-trend-clear-as-day/



I think a couple things. Obviously this would be an ideal response to things like:

Quote :

"Hard to take that stance entirely serious when they can't explain the 15+ year pause in warming."

Since the graph would appear to show a 15-year "opposite of pause". But I'm skeptical myself. The graph looks all-too linear. I don't think that's how climate works. If there are no 5 or 10 year cycles, then that would seem to cast doubt in either the methods of, or the objectivity of, the source.


As another note, this isn't bad:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2013 12:19:32 PM

[Edited on September 30, 2013 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2013 12:40:10 PM

it'd make your trolls more believable if you actually provided a data source or accompanying explanation.

9/30/2013 12:42:08 PM

What came out Monday was just the SPM report, not the full IPCC report. It's almost entirely politically driven.

10/1/2013 8:25:07 AM

I think if we could get it up another 2 or 3 degrees and just leave it there that would be great.

10/1/2013 9:20:39 AM

I have heard mummers that the 95% is bullshit.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

Quote :

"In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context? A few days ago, Seth Borenstein of AP attempted to explain What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists. Excerpts: With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less."

That seems completely dumb, considering that climate modeling has lots and lots of work done with sensitivity analysis. They could easily produce a confidence figure with decent academic work. So maybe someone just screwed the pooch. It was an unnecessary blunder, if the above quote is correct.

10/1/2013 9:24:51 AM

don't blame science for lazy reporting

10/1/2013 9:52:03 AM

http://mrc.org/articles/networks-embrace-catastrophic-warnings-latest-ipcc-report

this is fun

10/3/2013 10:43:07 AM

^ I pretty much stopped reading at the part where they mentioned Anthony Watts accusing someone else of "activist junk science."

10/3/2013 11:29:43 AM

That's fine. At least you read far enough to see the garbage making it onto major networks.

10/3/2013 11:39:09 AM

Personally I don't understand why they say they have a greater confidence now in the effects of CO2 warming the Earth than before, since they changed the predicted range of temperature increase from 2.0-4.5°C to 1.5-4.5°C. If you have a greater confidence wouldn't you narrow the range instead of increase it? Seems like a step backwards to me.

Or if I'm looking at this wrong someone please correct me.

10/4/2013 9:35:19 AM

http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-7?c=ufb1

10/17/2013 6:04:07 PM

[OLD], but legit.

10/17/2013 6:14:16 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hurricane-sandy-one-year-later

Quote :

"One year later, Superstorm Sandy survivors rebuild their lives Streets flooded. Tree trunks ripped from the ground. Power lines drooped low into neighborhoods. Walls blew away. Once prime beachfront real estates transformed into pieces. Town and city public transportation halted. Small businesses destroyed. "

Quote :

"Congress approved a $50.7 billion recovery package for states affected by the storm in January"

Quote :

"Last year the United States experienced the warmest year on record, and temperatures reached unprecedented levels worldwide. The aftermath of Sandy brought needed attention to natural disasters as people now begin to consider the impact of climate change and sustainability into their practical decisions, said John Oppermann, deputy director of Earth Day New York."

If man made climate change is real, who should be responsible for paying for this?

10/29/2013 10:42:18 PM

Well, we can talk about that when you can show any evidence that "climate change" had anything to do with Sandy.

10/29/2013 11:03:43 PM

^^If Sandy had hit at low tide nobody would even remember the storm's name. Trying to attribute any fault for the storm to AGW is just silly and not even the IPCC backs up any claims related to that.

[Edited on October 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM. Reason : k]

10/30/2013 8:52:56 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/01/obama-creates-climate-change-task-force/

11/1/2013 10:58:26 PM

Even if Sandy wasn't solely due to AGW, this is what the future looks like with AGW. Rising sea level and tons of coastal flooding.

11/1/2013 11:22:35 PM

^soley? Sandy wasn't due to AGW at all. Go read the IPCC's 5th report, it agrees with me.

Please stop spreading/believing doomsday scenarios that have no basis in reality. There is no sea level crisis anywhere at the moment.

[Edited on November 5, 2013 at 8:28 AM. Reason : k]

11/5/2013 8:28:21 AM

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map



I'm not gonna lie, getting rid of Florida would be totally worth it.

[Edited on November 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM. Reason : :]

11/5/2013 5:34:18 PM

Bad parts of CA too Is it just me or in that graphic are the great lakes the exact same size they are today? That wouldn't be the case of course...

It's a bit sad to see National Geographic stooping to a level such as this, nothing but fear mongering. It would take thousands of years for this to occur, and by that point the planet will have entered another ice age. So in reality, a scenario such as this will never happen. NatGeo has been losing credibility for a while - this does nothing to help.

[Edited on November 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM. Reason : k]

11/6/2013 10:25:46 AM

I think the great lakes are well above sea level, like between 200 and 500 ft above it. So even if you had a glacier melting directly into the great lakes, they could just release all the extra water down the St. Lawrence river and into the ocean. In order to get the great lakes to grow "significantly" you would need the sea level to rise way over 200 ft.

The page actually says everything you just mentioned about the ice melting taking thousands of years. There is no fear mongering here, only scientific inference.

[Edited on November 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM. Reason : right?]

11/6/2013 10:38:13 AM

^interesting about the great lakes. I don't entirely "get it" since the St. Lawrence River connects to the ocean.

Then why is NatGeo publishing that in the first place? It's only purpose has to do with AGW. Just like their ridiculous magazine cover last year with the Statue of Liberty partially under water.

11/7/2013 8:58:53 AM

what do you not get? they are hundreds of feet above sea level, he literally just explained it.



[Edited on November 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2013 9:13:53 AM

Fox hasn't updated it's story in a while, they're now saying this is one of the strongest storms in recorded history with 190 mph and gusts up to 230

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/11/07/thousands-flee-before-big-typhoon-hits-philippines/?intcmp=latestnews

and no, i'm no saying this is necessarily due to global warming, because there's no way i could know that. but some will swear it is. and some will swear it isn't.

11/7/2013 12:27:33 PM

^^GD it, I think I was a bit distracted when I replied and though "below" sea level
Nice graphic though

^that article says sustained winds of 134 and gusts of 155 mph. I thought that was only slightly more powerful than usual for those Pacific storms.

[Edited on November 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on November 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM. Reason : k]

11/7/2013 1:05:12 PM

^that's why i said fox hadn't updated its story in a while. you can look at other sites and see the increased wind speeds. i think fox is purposely not updating the numbers

[Edited on November 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2013 1:10:34 PM