Hard Truth About The So Called Climate Change “Consensus”

Liberal math.

Giving a liberal a calculator is like giving a monkey a calculator. Trusting a liberal with math is a dangerous thing.

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Stanky posted:

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Edzachery!  One thing for absolute sure is, the 97% claim is bogus.

Stanky posted:

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Or, if any at all were told that. 

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Stanky posted:

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Edzachery!  One thing for absolute sure is, the 97% claim is bogus.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

Stanky posted:

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Edzachery!  One thing for absolute sure is, the 97% claim is bogus.

Stanky posted:

OldSalt posted:

Interesting graphic.  But, the 66.4% is null data and meaningless in regards to the question of whether or not climate change as currently observed is anthropogenic.  It doesn't tell us if those scientists think climate change as currently observed is a natural phenomenon or anthropogenic.   These scientists may not have stated a cause because they did not know, it was their decision not to state a cause, they were advised not to get into the controversy, or for whatever reason.  So, the graphic is somewhat misleading, tending to make one believe only 32.6% of the scientists who study climate change conclude that it is man-made.

And conversely, we don't know how many of the 97% of the 33.6% were told that their papers wouldn't be published without a statement that mankind did it. Also from that graphic, we also don't know how many papers split the responsibility between anthropogenic and natural causes and their guesstimates of percentages for both causes. 

Or, if any at all were told that. 

"Edzachery!  One thing for absolute sure is, the 97% claim is bogus."

But, with the 66.4% being null data, it is a true statement to say, "Of 4,030 scientific papers that stated a position on the cause of climate change, 97% stated climate change was man-made."

I don't see how the 66.4 can be seen as null.  I could just as easily assume the 32.6% were bought and paid for and null as well.

Based on this graphic and the data included, the 66.4% being null data is not an assumption.  Those papers made no statement as to the cause of climate change (either man-made, natural or a combination) so we do not know what those scientists think is the cause.

Your statement, "I could just as easily assume the 32.6% were bought and paid for and null as well." is not supported by the graphic or the included data.

 https://www.skepticalscience.c...nsensus-advanced.htm

The Abstracts Survey

The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004).  We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary).  We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence).

Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below.  Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24.  We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.

We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.

Note that John Cook also initiated a spinoff from the project with a survey of climate blog participants re-rating a subset of these same abstracts.  However, this spinoff is not a part of our research or conclusions.

OldSalt posted:

 https://www.skepticalscience.c...nsensus-advanced.htm

The Abstracts Survey

The first step of our approach involved expanding the original survey of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in Oreskes (2004).  We performed a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications (in the ISI Web of Science) for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011, which returned over 12,000 papers. John Cook created a web-based system that would randomly display a paper's abstract (summary).  We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence).

Our approach was also similar to that taken by James Powell, as illustrated in the popular graphic below.  Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24.  We took this approach further, also looking at implicit rejections, no opinions, and implicit/explicit endorsements.

We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.

Note that John Cook also initiated a spinoff from the project with a survey of climate blog participants re-rating a subset of these same abstracts.  However, this spinoff is not a part of our research or conclusions.

You might want to cite other sources than papers or a website run by an Aussie cartoonist:

http://www.populartechnology.n...eptical-science.html

http://www.yaleclimateconnecti...e-founder-john-cook/

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...B0A8F3.ip-10-40-1-98

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

2/3 of the papers having no position implies that man made global warming is not a slam dunk.  I can guarantee you that 97% of climate scientists do not think the liberal definition of "climate change" is occuring.  I would also bet that many of the papers in the 32.6% category were produced by bought and paid for researchers.  I'm sure the same can be said vice versa, however, that does not invalidate the debunking of the 97% myth.

Reply to 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis'.

Authors: Cook, John^1,2,3 j.cook3@uq.edu.au
Nuccitelli, Dana²
Skuce, Andrew⁴
Jacobs, Peter⁵
Painting, Rob²
Honeycutt, Rob²
Green, Sarah A.⁶
Lewandowsky, Stephan^3,7
Richardson, Mark⁸
Way, Robert G.⁹

Source:Energy Policy. Oct2014, Vol. 73, p706-708. 3p.Document

Type:Article

Subject Terms:*GLOBAL warming*

CLIMATIC changes
RECONCILIATION
MANUFACTURES
SCIENTIFIC literature
STATISTICSAuthor-Supplied Keywords:Anthropogenic global warming
Global climate change
Scientific consensus

Abstract:Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature 'overwhelmingly supports' AGW, but disputes C13's methods. We show that T14's claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14's claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

2/3 of the papers having no position implies that man made global warming is not a slam dunk.  I can guarantee you that 97% of climate scientists do not think the liberal definition of "climate change" is occuring.  I would also bet that many of the papers in the 32.6% category were produced by bought and paid for researchers.  I'm sure the same can be said vice versa, however, that does not invalidate the debunking of the 97% myth.

There is no data which supports your claim, and the graphic does not support any of your claims. 

OldSalt posted:

Reply to 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis'.

Authors: Cook, John^1,2,3 j.cook3@uq.edu.au
Nuccitelli, Dana²
Skuce, Andrew⁴
Jacobs, Peter⁵
Painting, Rob²
Honeycutt, Rob²
Green, Sarah A.⁶
Lewandowsky, Stephan^3,7
Richardson, Mark⁸
Way, Robert G.⁹

Source:Energy Policy. Oct2014, Vol. 73, p706-708. 3p.Document

Type:Article

Subject Terms:*GLOBAL warming*

CLIMATIC changes
RECONCILIATION
MANUFACTURES
SCIENTIFIC literature
STATISTICSAuthor-Supplied Keywords:Anthropogenic global warming
Global climate change
Scientific consensus

Abstract:Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature 'overwhelmingly supports' AGW, but disputes C13's methods. We show that T14's claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14's claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030,2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

http://link.springer.com/artic...1-013-9647-9#/page-1

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientistsDennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published inEnvironmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...04579578462813553136

The only method of determining the true percentage is to identify all the climate scientists in the world.  Then, draw a random statistical sample from that number -- usually 10 to 15 percent, at a minimum. After, that, only can a legally justified percentage be determined.

direstraits posted:

The only method of determining the true percentage is to identify all the climate scientists in the world.  Then, draw a random statistical sample from that number -- usually 10 to 15 percent, at a minimum. After, that, only can a legally justified percentage be determined.

I like that idea and it would work if you could get enough to reply to a survey. 

But, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome?  Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed?  

OldSalt posted:

direstraits posted:

The only method of determining the true percentage is to identify all the climate scientists in the world.  Then, draw a random statistical sample from that number -- usually 10 to 15 percent, at a minimum. After, that, only can a legally justified percentage be determined.

I like that idea and it would work if you could get enough to reply to a survey. 

But, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome?  Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed?  

 

This method is the only scientifically sound one and accepted in courts of law -- both criminal and civil.

direstraits posted:

OldSalt posted:

direstraits posted:

The only method of determining the true percentage is to identify all the climate scientists in the world.  Then, draw a random statistical sample from that number -- usually 10 to 15 percent, at a minimum. After, that, only can a legally justified percentage be determined.

I like that idea and it would work if you could get enough to reply to a survey. 

But, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome?  Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed?  

 

This method is the only scientifically sound one and accepted in courts of law -- both criminal and civil.

I don't doubt you on that. Yet, in your opinion, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome? Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed? 

OldSalt posted:

direstraits posted:

The only method of determining the true percentage is to identify all the climate scientists in the world.  Then, draw a random statistical sample from that number -- usually 10 to 15 percent, at a minimum. After, that, only can a legally justified percentage be determined.

I like that idea and it would work if you could get enough to reply to a survey. 

But, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome?  Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed?  

 

Of course the other side shouldn't care what the outcome of the survey says, surveys amount to beauty contests. If a survey on the center of the universe happened in the early 16'th Century, the Earth would be the center. If someone does a survey on the existence of God, that proves nothing at all. If each side is arguing different theories with research to back the theories, that's science.

OldSalt posted:

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

2/3 of the papers having no position implies that man made global warming is not a slam dunk.  I can guarantee you that 97% of climate scientists do not think the liberal definition of "climate change" is occuring.  I would also bet that many of the papers in the 32.6% category were produced by bought and paid for researchers.  I'm sure the same can be said vice versa, however, that does not invalidate the debunking of the 97% myth.

There is no data which supports your claim, and the graphic does not support any of your claims. 

Of course it does.  The fact that most of the papers had no stance, implies that the liberal definition of "climate change" is not accepted by 97% of the community.  The liberal definition being climate change will have catastrophic effects on the planet. 

One-Third of AMS Members Don’t Agree with Climate Change Orthodoxy

March 24th, 2016

A George Mason University survey of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) on climate change attitudes in the meteorological community has just been released.

It shows fairly general acceptance of the view that climate change is happening, that it is at least partly due to humans, and that we can mitigate it somewhat by our energy policies.

Fully 37% of those surveyed (including me) consider themselves “expert” in climate science. It should be remembered that most of us old climate researchers were formally trained as meteorologists, with climatology being just a small part of our education.

But what I find interesting is that the supposed 97% consensus on climate change (which we know is bogus anyway) turns into only 67% when we consider the number of people who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans, as indicated by this bar chart:

George Mason University survey results of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society.

Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)…or simply think we “don’t know”.

For something that is supposed to be “settled science”, I find that rather remarkable.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

OldSalt posted:

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

2/3 of the papers having no position implies that man made global warming is not a slam dunk.  I can guarantee you that 97% of climate scientists do not think the liberal definition of "climate change" is occuring.  I would also bet that many of the papers in the 32.6% category were produced by bought and paid for researchers.  I'm sure the same can be said vice versa, however, that does not invalidate the debunking of the 97% myth.

There is no data which supports your claim, and the graphic does not support any of your claims. 

Of course it does.  The fact that most of the papers had no stance, implies that the liberal definition of "climate change" is not accepted by 97% of the community.  The liberal definition being climate change will have catastrophic effects on the planet. 

 

One thing at a time.

I do not agree with your assumption and I believe you are erroneously reading into data that is not there.  Consider the question I asked Dire:

"Yet, in your opinion, would it convince the opposing side, whatever the outcome? Or, would we stick to our preconceived notions claiming the numbers or the method was somehow flawed? "

He has not given me an answer.  I cannot imply anything by this lack of a statement on his part.  There is no data available for me to interpret.  I do not know what Dire's opinion is. 

It is the same with the published papers from the survey in your original graphic.  The scientists did not make a statement as to the cause of climate change, therefore we cannot imply anything.  We cannot assume those scientists are on one side of the fence or the other, whatever definition of climate change one wants to use. 

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

One-Third of AMS Members Don’t Agree with Climate Change Orthodoxy

March 24th, 2016

A George Mason University survey of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) on climate change attitudes in the meteorological community has just been released.

It shows fairly general acceptance of the view that climate change is happening, that it is at least partly due to humans, and that we can mitigate it somewhat by our energy policies.

Fully 37% of those surveyed (including me) consider themselves “expert” in climate science. It should be remembered that most of us old climate researchers were formally trained as meteorologists, with climatology being just a small part of our education.

But what I find interesting is that the supposed 97% consensus on climate change (which we know is bogus anyway) turns into only 67% when we consider the number of people who believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans, as indicated by this bar chart:

George Mason University survey results of 4,092 members of the American Meteorological Society.

Fully 33% either believe climate change is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half-manmade (I tend toward that last category)…or simply think we “don’t know”.

For something that is supposed to be “settled science”, I find that rather remarkable.

This is good stuff.  Indeed, according to this only 67% of the members of the AMS think humans are mostly responsible for climate change.  But, a full 81% think humans have significantly impacted the climate.  Only 13% think human impact on the climate is negligible or nonexistent.  6% are on the fence. 

Stanky posted:

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030,2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

http://link.springer.com/artic...1-013-9647-9#/page-1

 

And, from the same issue of Science & Education:

"Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs

A question still unanswered, what caused the two major ice ages and, what ended them?  Another,  why was the north pole once a very warm area -- fossil evidence shows ferns and other tropical plants, plus all those dinosaur bones.

direstraits posted:

A question still unanswered, what caused the two major ice ages and, what ended them?  Another,  why was the north pole once a very warm area -- fossil evidence shows ferns and other tropical plants, plus all those dinosaur bones.

And lakes and trees in the Sahara desert.  Climate change does happen naturally.  But, humans are, on average, are emitting more CO2 per year than the earths volcanoes.  200 million tons per year for volcanoes vs. 26.8 billion for humans (annual averages.)

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcano...e/2007/07_02_15.html  

OldSalt posted:

direstraits posted:

A question still unanswered, what caused the two major ice ages and, what ended them?  Another,  why was the north pole once a very warm area -- fossil evidence shows ferns and other tropical plants, plus all those dinosaur bones.

And lakes and trees in the Sahara desert.  Climate change does happen naturally.  But, humans are, on average, are emitting more CO2 per year than the earths volcanoes.  200 million tons per year for volcanoes vs. 26.8 billion for humans (annual averages.)

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcano...e/2007/07_02_15.html  

The biggest problem with climate science that I see is that there is no doubt that there is a correlation of CO2 levels and temperatures both rising, but correlations don't necessarily prove causation of CO2 all by itself or in combination with other lesser factors raised the temperatures. After all, with rising temperatures, CO2 solubility in water decreases; so in a warmer climate one can expect a rise in gaseous CO2 as the seas warm from both stored gas and decreased absorption from the atmosphere . To prove that CO2 is the predominant factor in global warming, true believers generate computer models that don't conform to actual temperature measurements which forces the true believers to seek other fudge factors and also to "amend" present and past temperature data. I might note that during what paleoclimatoligists call the "Snowball Earth" era, CO2 levels were higher than today.

I won't say that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but I will say that I think some scientists might be overestimating its effect until they can honestly prove the connection. I won't even say that man might not be affecting the climate, but there are other ways that man affects the climate with deforestation, greening deserts with irrigation, changing river flows, darkening glaciers, and other possible ways, both known and unknown.

Within the US there are more woodlands than in pre-Columbian times.  Trees are growing at a faster rate because of an increase in CO2 -- decreasing the level. 

BTW, the best explanation for the north pole's previous tropical climate is that the globe flipped on its axis -- old north pole was southwest of Hawaii.  The major reason for the earth no longer having a global tropical climate is that was its normal state.  When the Indian subcontinent crashed into south Asia, the Himalayas were created.  The extremely tall mountains act as a heat sink -- forcing the excess heat into space.