John Cook repeated this statement that is used by most of the alarmists.

in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

I do know a lot of scientists. I was in NASA for 44 years and have studied Climate Science for six and a half years. I do find the 97%.

Who are they? I would like to see a list, signed and dated.

The skeptics put together a list with more than thirty thousand. That means the consensus people should have a list with nearly three hundred thousand.

Pekka wrote:
“Here we can read for umpteenth time on attribution study that looks at the recent warming as an unexpected event and asks what we can conclude strongly from such an unexpected observation.

That has nothing to do with AGW which is not unexpected but strongly expected. The reasonable question to ask is not, whether the warming is due to AGW, as it’s virtually certain that AGW has contributed to it. The reasonable question to ask is, what can we learn about the strength of AGW. Root cause analysis is not the right tool for that.”

“Unexpected” was not my word, and if you follow it back up this page, it shows a good example of how threads get lost in comment streams. I posed the problem a certain way and then addressed it the way I posed it, based upon first principles and using clear logic and structure. The assumption that you and Mosher both begin with, that the modern warming is a mix of causes, has zero basis in established fact. It comes entirely from expert opinion, which you might notice did not make the evidence hierarchy at all. Steven Jay Gould borrowed the term “just so stories” from Rudyard Kipling to describe the presentation of entirely unfounded assertions as scientific fact. If you want to meaningfully challenge my approach, and there are indeed ways to do so, you need to first wean yourself from unfounded assertions so that you can at least establish some sort of foundation to build upon. You have essentially sliced your sword through the Gordian Knot, and now lying at your feet you have two knots you cannot untie. Your post, and those from Mosher as well, basically consist of “See? There are two knots!” Why don’t you step back and see if you can contribute to untying the knot?

25,000 years in the future
Scott

The press release about the Karakoram glaciers explains model performance improved a lot when they used a refined grid. I´m used to introducing grid refinements in model sectors with steep property gradient changes, and I can´t see why the climate models can´t introduce such refinements in key areas. Are those models are expected to run so sloppy that grid refinements can´t help them avoid poor results?

Sorry, wrong spot, Florida coast line flooding date.
Scott

“a simple indicator for policy purposes, and as basis for discussing pros and cons of different policy choices, but not to be taken too literally as a real threshold.”

In other words, Not Science. Never was.

Andrew

Rob Ellison had earlier written: “A proof of the hydrostatic relationship? That was probably lecture number two in engineering school. It is not proof that kinetic motion doesn’t dominate over hugely minor gravitational effects in a box. It does.”

http://in-the-sky.org/physics/balls.php

This is an online simulation of the Boltzmann distribution for particles in a box within a gravity field. You can see that they don’t have any tendency to disperse in the box any more than the Boltzmann distribution for the potential gravitational energy allows. The simulated molecules thus also satisfy the barometric formula *exactly* (both for pressure and density) even while confined in a very small box. Scroll down to see the plot of the (simulated) mass distribution as a function of height. Once the molecules have reached this exponential vertical density gradient, they don’t have a tendency to disperse anymore evenly than that.

I have seen studies that show 7 times as many people die from a 1C change down vs up. I.e. if temps rose 2 degrees far fewer people would die of pneumonia, heart disease and other ailments that are affected by the cold. I believe the IPCC admits in its reports that until 2080 food production will rise as a result of global warming. This is believable as higher temps would mean more arable land, more evaporation would mean more rainfall and we have seen over the last 50 years as CO2 has climbed that total biotic life on the planet has increased some 30-50% according to NASA satellites measurements. It is rare to see these points made which are clearly significant positives. The IPCC claims that in 80 years when temps hit 2 degrees that due to numerous reasons food production will actually decrease. This i find unbelievable. One paper I saw said the reason for this would be the slow migration of crops from hotter areas to the new arable land opened up by the warmer climate or just migration of farm land. At most such an effect would be temporary and if the demand was there for food it is hard to believe that such a “migration” would be lengthy. In fact I find it hard to believe there would be any time to migration and I doubt that existing growing regions would experience any significant decline as well. We have been good at growing in the desert and one of the most productive areas is for instance the california midsection which is hot. I don’t find believable that food production would decline at all in 2080 even if technology remained completely unchanged. However, we know that amazing exponential knowledge of genetics and chemistry is likely to produce drastic improvements in all measures of food production over the years. Therefore any predicted decrease is ludicrous in my opinion and immediately puts in doubt the veracity of the whole argument that there are catastrophic consequences.

I don’t know of other good factual studies on many of these topics because partly I believe there would be little incentive to pay for a study that showed life will be great in the future. The way you get study money is to show there is a disaster potentially on the horizon. If you then conclude in your paper that oh sorry I was wrong, things will be fine my guess is you won’t get any more money. Therefore, academia has a bias, must have a bias to predicting negative outcomes.

I have a very powerful memory of the “Club of Rome” predictions back in the 80s. These were a whole bunch of academia from MIT and elsewhere who constructed computer models of the world economic and environment systems. They predicted that by 2000 the world would either be in ultra polluted deadly state or people would be starving for lack of food or some combination and their conclusion was that unless we chose a communist approach effectively of controlling many aspects of our society along a very precise curve we were doomed to catastrophe. Of course it was China that converted to capitalism not the rest of the world and not only that but 2000 was an incredible improvement over 1980s. 25 years of very high growth and we didn’t face the consequences they predicted at all. This really made me realize how computer models can be so much stupidity. It also made me realize how human ingenuity can be incredibly impactful.

A few years ago we didn’t know about fracking and the natural gas resevoirs we have figured out how to leverage. This has enabled us to drastically change the US energy and economic picture. Trillions of dollars in new cleaner energy does produce CO2 but less and the impact on the world is massively positive. I am driving an electric car now. I charge it at night when energy production is cheap and cleaner. I believe we will see a lot more electric cars faster than people believed a few years ago. I believe we will see battery technology improve and that the gas vehicle will be phased out over 50 years. I also believe that alternative energies will get better and that by the mid-century we will see a significant transition away from “liquid dinasour” type products. I say this conservatively in my opinion. It could happen a lot sooner but even if this more pessimistic prediction is true then whatever runup in CO2 we have will be limited to closer to a single doubling of CO2 which I believe now will result in another 0.5C increase in temperature from here which even the IPCC admits would likely be positive for humanity. I therefore find it unbelievable that we will have the 2C or 3C or more scenario and the debate about whether there are catastrophic consequences is therefore moot whether you believe their predictions of gloom or not. Therefore the need to limit use of fossil fuels is moot in my opinion. I think for many reasons including the dirtiness of fossil fuels and deadly nature of them in other ways, the need to move away from limited resources anyway that it is prudent to do so when it is economically at all reasonable to do so. Electric cars are very economic now in my opinion. I save $400-500/month in energy costs from mine. That’s 200 dollars from the gas cost and $200 reduction in my electric bill from moving to a time based billing scheme allowed in california for owners of electric vehicles. Combined with rebates from state and federal my electric car is essentially free for the first year or two and its maintenance costs will be lower over the long term. It is incredibly safe and I believe an eminently good choice. There was no compromise in choosing it. I believe that it is entirely likely that electric cars will make a bigger impact to reducing and changing our energy scenario over the next 50 years. This is just evidence that whatever the IPCC plans for our future is hardly solid predictions. So, I am profoundly distrustful of such predictions.

We don’t have a “fossil fuel fixation”. Fossil fuels are taken for granted. We actually lack a fixation on a technological revolution which has given us a bounty of goods, services, life-expectancy, mobility and freedom which is nothing short of stupendous when compared with past living standards.

Like celebrating Earth Hour in exciting urban venues? Like your Prius, your expensive “green” products, your sustainable home with planet-saving fittings, your trips to weekend markets where everything is organic and Fair Trade and stamped virtuous? Your jet trails to activist conferences? Fossil fuels give you all that. Without fossil fuels, none of that.

As for me, I like the fact that people even on the lowest stratum can afford not just to eat but to overeat. I’m proud of shopping malls, the abundance and variety of cheap food and cheap goods and the democratization of consumption. Seriously, I’m proud to be part of it.

We lack a fossil fuel fixation. We guzzle the benefits then whine like bored gourmets at the least blemish in the service. We elevate the primitive and flirt with it – knowing we will never have to live primitively.

We need a fossil fuel fixation in the form of gratitude.

“Strong LInk between Climate Change and Violence”?? There has to be a sanity check for “studies” like this. Good grief. This is reeking of political influence in coming elections, grasping… More far-reaching silliness..

We had a climate change conference in Las Vegas in July.
600 people attended. There were 66 speakers from all over the world. The consensus people were invited and none came.

I suspect the consensus people don’t have conferences because they know the skeptics would come and they do not discuss and debate with anyone who disagrees.

I would like for them to write out what it is that they all have consensus on and then sign and date it for us to really know who they are and their record for being right about stuff and what it is that they really believe.
The IPCC the gathering that is supposed to put it all together, but each IPCC does not have the same consensus as the previous IPCC.

One time they have a hockey stick and the next time they don’t.

How can you have consensus and make that large of a change in just a few years? Less and less real scientists do take part each time the IPCC meets. Any who disagree do not get invited back. That is how the maintain their 97%, they kick out those who disagree. They only get to 97% because they cannot kick them all out fast enough. As their clique gets smaller and smaller, this may become easier.

Correction:
The IPCC is the gathering that is supposed to put it all together, but each IPCC does not have the same consensus as the previous IPCC.

And yet no smack down when Tamino allowed carte balance at his site on one of our own, Fan?
Misogynists can be of any persuasion Fan, not just the far right.
Whether one hates women or deniers, haters are all the same are they not Fan?
Lucky we do not fall into that camp, eh!

David Wojick says, October 25, 2014 at 7:48 am:

“Kristian: Surely the fact that CO2 is a GHG implies that in the abstract increasing CO2 will increase T. There is no pseudoscience to that much.”

This is precisely the kind of backward thinking that defines a PSEUDOscientific approach to reality. Thanks for confirming my observation.

David, you seemingly being blind to the obvious circularity of your own statement here speaks volumes about the jammed mindset of the regular AGW-believer. You simply do not see it yourself.

I do find the 97% because they are a small enough group to easily find.

Thanks, Planning. As a former PE engineer in the utility industry myself, very information-rich post & comments (at least most).

Thanks also to the hostess for posting this.

FOMD, off topic but… Look this up.

http://in-the-sky.org/physics/balls.php

There is a new paper on ocean circulation that includes Yari Rosenthal and Kari Lawrence as co-authors which paywalled.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/24/past-climate-change-was-caused-by-the-ocean-not-just-the-atmosphere-new-rutgers-study-finds/

It appears to get into a lot more detail on impact of ocean heat transport versus CO2 forcing, something very pertinent since there is a hemispheric see saw that doesn’t stop magically.

Chris G, don’t pedal lies here; we have it on good authority, John Sidles, that the atmosphere is isothermal and is in thermal equilibrium with the surface and space.

This is SO true, scat. (Like the name BTW) I hear frequently all these people warning about storms. I keep going back to the fact that apparently people are blithely unaware of the types of disasters prevalent throughout history (even the last 100 years). A small examination of the facts shows natural disasters killing millions and millions of people just in the last century many of them much worse than anything we’ve seen recently. I feel like people are only aware of their current experiences and believe that life prior to their life was a blissful uneventful calm stability if they haven’t heard of it then it never happened. It is so naive. I was unaware of most paleolithic climate information 20 years ago. I knew that it was warmer in the past and we went through ice ages but only in a broad outline. Now I understand that even with the “hockey stick” that went back 1000 or 2000 years that is simply ridiculously short time frame to be looking at this data. Now we know the hockey stick was wrong and there were variations possibly even warmer than today 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, certainly 5,000 years ago it was 2C warmer. They knew this. They didn’t point this out and that was damning when I discovered it because it demanded an explanation They had no explanation so they left such information out I believe hoping that people would not ask the difficult question they had no answer for which was why those variations in the recent past happened? Their models do not explain these variations because they apparently aren’t caused by co2 therefore they just denied their existence. I even had the head of lawrence livermore climate modeling tell me face to face that the MWP and LIA were not global just a few years ago. I was astonished because these “hot periods and cold periods” lasted for hundreds of years and left what he said were regions of the world apparently much hotter than other regions. He was willing to accept that on the face of it without the obvious problem that “How could that happen?” How could one part of the earth experience such a massive increase in temperature for hundreds of years but the rest of the earth was unchanged? He had no explanation or apparent interest in discovering the reason for that but he was willing to accept out of the box that co2 was the 90% reason for any variation in temps longer term. I found that shocking. How could he be interested in the climate of the earth and found it so uninteresting that parts of the earth were warmer for hundreds of years (or colder) than others? It’s obvious he just didn’t want to give up his belief that CO2 was the only relevant factor.

References to “unprecedented” in the last 1000 years or 600 years sounds impressive but if you look at the record you realize it is just completely meaningless statistic. The idea there could be longer term wavelike phenomenon in the system either from the sun or oceans or earth that we don’t know about is obvious and should have been considered. The idea we don’t understand the chemistry or how these factors could work is also obvious. They admit that we had virtually no ocean data that has 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere and is in direct contact with the atmosphere yet they are willing to make predictions without really any robust data from that variable data at all (pre-2000) and they admitted they didn’t understand clouds yet that variable could easily swamp all other effects yet they said with 95% surety the heating from 1975-1998 was caused by CO2 (110% according to Gavin).

If Gavin is right that CO2 should have caused 110% of the heating we saw between 1975-2000 then it means that since we know around 50% of the heating was due to PDO/AMO that some process is suppressing 60% of the effect of CO2. That is damning right there because it forces him to admit he doesn’t understand where the CO2 heat went. Either that or he is still denying the existence of PDO/AMO. The climate modeler head from Lawrence livermore told me that PDO/AMO would stop that it wouldn’t continue anymore. That the effect was erased by CO2. He didn’t have an explanation for this bold claim. Apparently from what I could see since his models didn’t show it it didn’t exist. I am profoundly amazed that they are so hypnotized by their models that they are willing to deny existence of obvious phenomenon and come up with ludicrous explanations to explain them.

There is no way around it. They knew much of the landscape of uncertainty and they went ahead and said 95% surety when any scientist or even layman with a modicum of interest in the subject could see that was completely ridiculous assertion. I find it hard to find a plausible way to “excuse” this misdirection other than to say it was in their interests to maintain their careers to say this. I get that. Academics frequently will chase the “hot” topic for research. If climate change is the hot topic or cancer for medical science for instance, then you as an acedemic find a way to say your study will find a potential cure for cancer or better study this catastrophic inevitability. It is not in your interest to minimize the panic if you want to keep the money flowing. I can understand that and if you use the cancer basis and you are investigating something which has minimal likelihood of ever impacting cancer knowledge it may seem benign that researchers abuse this. The problem is largely not the academics but the system does not have a robust way of saying we need to study a broad array of topics even if it won’t affect cancer or if global warming won’t be deadly it is still worth spending a lot of money studying it. I can’t entirely blame academics for just finding a way to work within the system although if it is outright fraudulent research then that is different. I am not sure if some of the research in climate is of that magnitude but there is considerable evidence that some of these statements were not plausible science.

I myself am very happy we spent some of the money on climate study. I particularly like the ARGO project and the satellite projects giving us really useful data. I think we should focus down the efforts on modeling and reduce funding considerably until we have more data. We need more experimental funding to actually test hypothesis. I don’t know how to do this but there must be some enterprising academics out there who can find ways to substantiate some of the model assumptions with real data rather than continuing to tweak computer models to “find” the right formulas I would rather we did real science and found the parameters by experiment. We should also find ways to put bounds on and measure large impact variables and understand any cyclic processes in these larger variables. This means studying the sun to understand its cycles and atmosphere and even deeper ocean temp measurements. I would like to understand better how interaction of the mantle and ocean could affect the system. We know that volcanoes can affect the atmosphere. How do we know that release of large amounts of heat in the deep ocean couldn’t cause long term changes in climate later. I am very opposed to a lot of the impact studies which I believe are useless and extremely poor work. Most of those things I’ve seen are completely unbelievable stupid science. Some of it has been okay.

I realize this means waiting for more data but I think it is sufficiently proven to me that the change in temps will be minor from our CO2 production planned and that even if the co2 is produced and we get temp change that the effects on humanity are negligible. Therefore can we please move to longer term studying and more “basic” science that will uncover the true science in climate science which I don’t believe we have at this point and forget all this prediction stuff and all the “long term effects” studies. These are hopeless.