[POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers

[mtdoc]

I asked you what the ideal global temperature was and you don't know or wouldn't say. If you don't know you can't say warmer is better or worse.

As was asked earlier, "ideal for who".  If the answer is "ideal for the global human population" then the answer is that the ideal temperature is about what it is now - or better-what it was 50 years or so ago when global population centers were first expanding.

There is no question that any warming from here forward will continue to cause increased flooding of lowland coastal areas which will adversely impact millions of people.

That's just one example but it's the easiest one for those without the knowledge base to understand the impacts that just a few degrees temperature rise will have on global ecosystems which support our current human population.

[Marco]

I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.

As for the impact of global warming, I'm not denying it ... I'm just sceptical about the science "proving" the A part, my faith in the science disappeared with the MWP/LIA.

[mtdoc]

I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.

Perhaps, over many decades. In the meantime....

Human population centers, infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture have all been optimized based on the climate and land base that existed over the past 100 years.  Any change in that occurring over a short time scale (say 50-100 years) is going to have an adverse impact on human population.

The problem is that even if you want to argue that after a large population decrease in the next 50 years due to flooding of current population centers, industrial centers and arable land,  the population would then increase again due to new arable land, relocation of population and industry, etc  -  you can't just stop AGW at say 2-3 degrees C above where it is now. It becomes self-reinforcing due to several positive feedback centers and will likely continue well beyond that to where global ecosystem collapse and large areas become physically uninhabitable to humans.

It appears that as a species, that is the route we have chosen - a global experiment with us and the biosphere as its subjects.

[mtdoc]

As for the impact of global warming, I'm not denying it ... I'm just skeptical about the science "proving" the A part, my faith in the science disappeared with the MWP/LIA.

That's a lame excuse. The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally but thousands of scientists.  As has been pointed out numerous times, science is a self-correcting process where ideas are developed and later revised based on new data.  But eventually, based on a large body of work over time, consensus develops.  Also has been pointed out many times, science does not need to prove with 100% confidence that AGW is fact to justify taking action - especially given the ramifications.

Why do people buy fire insurance for their home when a house fire is a statistically rare event yet refuse to acknowledge the need for action on AGW when the science says it is a >90 % certainty?

[David Hess]

I am sure AGW exists and I do not care because rent seeking will ensure that workable solutions are unavailable.  This can be summed up by this conversation in the British science fiction film Quatermass and the Pit from 1967:

Professor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?
Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"positive feedback"

When there was 5..20x more CO2 than now surely there was no positive feedback then?

[retrolefty]

Why do people buy fire insurance for their home when a house fire is a statistically rare event yet refuse to acknowledge the need for action on AGW when the science says it is a >90 % certainty?

 I would say that most people buy fire insurance because it's a contract requirement by the mortgage company to grant a home loan.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"

Isn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who? "The establisment says the earth is flat" doesn't that ring any bells? To many it does!

Are all the skeptics simply fools in your opinion? That with a Nobel Prize, for example?

[Marco]

Human population centers, infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture have all been optimized based on the climate and land base that existed over the past 100 years.

The regions where actual optimization has taken place (ie. Western world, some Western Colonies and some South East Asian countries) would do fine if it wasn't for mass migration. The costs my country makes to protect against water (not really because of rising water, our western coast is actually dropping, only the eastern part of the country is rising) is dwarfed by the costs of non western immigration.

When you double your population in 25 years AND are dependent on foreign aid, talking about the land being optimized for use on a scale of 100 years is silly.

you can't just stop AGW at say 2-3 degrees C above where it is now. It becomes self-reinforcing due to several positive feedback centers and will likely continue well beyond that to where global ecosystem collapse and large areas become physically uninhabitable to humans.

No, global warming will stop tomorrow.

[mtdoc]

"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"

Isn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who?

Modest salaries with mostly public funding. Versus the professional AGW deniers funded by large fossil fuel industry funding.   

"The establisment says the earth is flat" doesn't that ring any bells? To many it does!

Sure - to those who appeal to religious authority. That has nothing to do with science. Ever heard of The Enlightenment?

Are all the skeptics simply fools in your opinion?

It used to be that there were many honest skeptics. 15 - 20 years ago when the evidence was still being accumulated. In my view, currently the so called "skeptics"  mostly fall in to a few broad categories:

1)  Professional "skeptics" funded by the fossil fuel and other industries with a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus.
2)  Gullible science - illiterate individuals who believe what their favorite religious or political leaders tell them and ignore the scientific community (creationists are another example of this).
3) Those whose financial interests or political tribalism lead them into a corner of unconscious bias and denial.

That with a Nobel Prize, for example?

  You mean that nutty old non- climate scientist who receives funding from fossil fuel interests?

Hmm, whom to believe? - him and the handful of other scientists who deny the consensus or the opinion of  > 97% of the international climate science community, dozens of nobel laureates, all of the major scientific organizations and the >97% of scientific literature supporting the tenets of AGW?  It's great that their are just a few "honest" skeptics in the scientific community out there. That is how it should be.  But for the average person it is dishonest IMO to claim they are pro-science but deny the opinions of > 97% of the climate science community just because it does not fit their vested financial, political, or religious interests.

[jonovid]

consensus among engineers? ........  ........ No! 

[David Hess]

Why is greenland called greenland?

Rigol's marketing ancestors.

AGW is at the very least a good doom scenario to get the general public to reduce energy consumption and invest in sustainable energy sources.

Reducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living.  I am sure that will be really popular.  Maybe we should argue instead that food should be rationed; the result will be the same.

The biggest challenge will be to reduce the costs of high cycle energy storage by an order of magnitude over the current state of the art.

All in all I think Nuclear will have a hard time competing in a couple of decades, assuming technological civilization doesn't collapse. Which I don't consider entirely unlikely either.

These two things conflict.  Nuclear power has to compete against energy storage which would need an order of magnitude improvement to be competitive.  How many orders of magnitude has battery storage had ever?  1/2?

I still know people who use incandescent bulbs because they're "cheaper", they are utterly unable or unwilling to understand the concept of electricity being the vast majority of the cost of the lamps, making CFL and now LED bulbs much cheaper in the long run.

Where I am incandescent bulbs *were* cheaper because dirty power would burn them out about every 6 months.  Now instead more expensive CFL and LED bulbs burn out every 6 months.

Closing the borders and letting Malthus solve the problem in the countries having it.

Closing the borders is not necessary for that.  Our old companions war, famine, plague, and pestilence do not care about borders.

I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.

Arable land is what is important.  And if the arable land for your existing crops shifts location, then you better be prepared to move or replace those crops.  Does anybody think entrenched and ossified political structures can handle this sort of issue before it becomes a deadly problem?  Because they sure will take advantage of it for rent seeking.

"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"

Isn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who?

Modest salaries with mostly public funding. Versus the professional AGW deniers funded by large fossil fuel industry funding.

Versus politically motivated funding by those seeking to take advantage of rent seeking.  The best way to get published is to support AGW.

[Marco]

That's a lame excuse. The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally but thousands of scientists.

Papers about MWP/LIA global nature are not as frequently cited as Mann's, but they are certainly not fringe. There is no tenet, only opposing camps.

Given the atrocious fit of climate models over the last few decades, hand waving and looking at the past is kind of important to climate "science". Hand wave the MWP/LIA away and you have unprecedented warming in recorded history, don't and you have an excursion currently only slightly higher than a millennium ago.

[nctnico]

Reducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living.

No it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.

Arable land is what is important.  And if the arable land for your existing crops shifts location, then you better be prepared to move or replace those crops.

You don't need arable land. You need good farming skills and technologies! Look at the NL: the world's 2nd largest exporter of agricultural products after the US which has 236 times more land. Being efficient pays off!

[Marco]

Closing the borders is not necessary for that.  Our old companions war, famine, plague, and pestilence do not care about borders.

Overpopulated nations don't have the power to spread those to the west if the west would be truly opposed to allowing them.

Closing the borders wouldn't be pretty, but walls and entrenched long range weaponry will keep uncoordinated and largely unarmed masses out just fine.

[David Hess]

Reducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living.

No it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.

Work just as well?  That is not what I have read.

Was there really a problem with vacuum cleaner efficiency?  Didn't they also make a similar regulation for electric kettles?  How was taking longer to heat the water more efficient?

The US has had a rash of similar policies enforced from above and the results are exactly what I expected.  Energy efficient dishwashers have to be run twice.  Toilets have to be flushed twice.

These policies always result in rent seeking and they are too common for me to believe this is anything except deliberate.

[mtdoc]

There is no tenet, only opposing camps.

One opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and all the major scientific organizations versus another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry - oh and zero reputable scientific organizations.

Even during the years of tobacco company corruption of some scientists the numbers were never that skewed.

[retrolefty]

There is no tenet, only opposing camps.

One opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Even during the years of tobacco company corruption of some scientists the numbers were never that skewed.

 I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.

  I don't mind people having any opinion on any subject, that is what free speech is all about. But when
one must try and claim their opinions as indisputable fact, then my spidey senses start to tingle.

 Here is something I read recently that sounds more realistic and closer to factual:

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

[Fungus]

I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.

I don't mind people having any opinion on any subject, that is what free speech is all about. But when
one must try and claim their opinions as indisputable fact, then my spidey senses start to tingle.

I've heard creationists say exactly that: That nothing is settled, evolution isn't proved, the debate is ongoing.

Here is something I read recently that sounds more realistic and closer to factual:

Yeah, lets go with the heart. Things that sound nice and comforting to us must be truer than the things the nasty people say.

[mtdoc]

I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.

That figure comes from more than one peer reviewed study. Links to the studies posted earlier in this thread.

So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".

[Fungus]

So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".

Yep. It's interesting how none of the deniers have produced a single verifiable fact or figure so far. It's all gut feeling and opinion.

[Hensingler]

No it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.

You mean like the ones from Bosch sold as 750W with an AAAA efficiency rating that automatically wind themselves up to 1.6kW when they detect they are actually picking up dust? Bosch didn't make them more efficient they made them bullshit EU efficiency test methods (rather like VW).

Manufactures do not deliberately produce inefficient products. They may trade production cost for efficiency and why shouldn't the consumer be allowed the same choice.

[Hensingler]

I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.

That figure comes from more than one peer reviewed study. Links to the studies posted earlier in this thread.

So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".

The 97% figure is utter bullshit, I don't know how anyone including Obama could be dumb enough to believe or quote it.

Here is an article detailing how it was arrived at
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069

 

[Marco]

One opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and all the major scientific organizations versus another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry - oh and zero reputable scientific organizations.

The LIA returned relatively quickly to the "concensus" and the Roman warm period got a lot hotter since the hockeystick, the MWP will have its day.

[mtdoc]

The 97% figure is utter bullshit,

No, it's verifiable fact based on several studues. From earlier in this thread:

----

Regarding the scientific consensus on AGW, it is based on more than just one study:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

More can be found HERE

It's also a fact  that all the major scientific organizations support the tenets of AGW.