Climate: The Movie

[berty3000]

I have, clearly you haven't beyond the abstract because they cover that in the method and results.

This is a variation of a standard scientific approach, a meta study. They are used to combine all the research on a topic together and in so doing refine it to get a better picture than individual studies could on their own.

And one thing they found very clearly is that the greater your knowledge of climate science, the greater the consensus.

Again, which study was discredited? I know the one you're thinking of, it's C13, and i know which attempt to discredit it you meant T16, but i don't think you do know what those papers are. Off you Google.

Lavish grants? Can we at least cut out the nonsense and waffle?

Ok, let me spell this out for you since you probably haven't ever worked in research.

Let's say I have a PhD in Psychology. I need to earn a living and I have a decent shot at applying for some grant funding which is related to climate change. Here is my hypothesis:

"Violent crime has increased as a result of climate change"

In my abstract, I might write something along the lines of:

"There is a consensus that CO2 emissions contribute to climate change and that rising CO2 is causing the climate to warm. This research paper explores whether global warming results in an increase in violent crime by considering the rate of such crime recorded in the city of Troy, Ohio between 1950 and 2020..."

Now, any researcher worth his salt will obviously have a section about limitations. Maybe there's no obvious relationship, or maybe there is but other variables need to be explored, etc.

Point is, the consensus estimating researchers will come along with their meta analysis, covering thousands of research papers which they will never read in any detail at all, do an electronic search of terms and find in my abstract, and probably elsewhere in the document, that I have stated that "rising CO2 is causing the climate to warm." I will be added to the list of "active climate scientists" (because I am studying a climate related topic) and added to the list of those who think CO2 is contributing to climate change.

I, with my poxy BS research paper and my PhD in psychology, having never even considered the causes of climate change itself, and knowing nothing at all about it, am now one of the 97%!

What is laughable is that the consensus estimators are even worse grifters because they are basically producing misleading research about research. Crap on top of crap. A significant proportion of research is total rubbish and a waste of tax payer's money.

So you have to think things through and understand the details. To even mention the 97% consensus is automatically discrediting. It is a con.

 

[aveatry]

I haven't shouted anybody down, I'm sorry if you are upset but you should have done your research before posting something based on misinformation.

Perhaps this will teach you to fact Check stuff before believing it next time

Perhaps you can tell us how melting sea ice adds to the rise in sea levels. Still waiting for your response

 

[Brigadier]

@aveatry

Over what period does the Earth receive 23% less (or more) solar "heat" - for want of a better word?

 

[IT Minion]

Point is, the consensus estimating researchers will come along with their meta analysis, covering thousands of research papers which they will never read in any detail at

That's not what the study I linked to did. Not would the other studies referenced be classed as meta studies.

And the methodology varied amongst the studies, in C13 they did read the abstracts I believe. In others they did not.

Let's say I have a PhD

You clearly don't

 

[aveatry]

@aveatry

Over what period does the Earth receive 23% less (or more) solar "heat" - for want of a better word?

Read the info in the link

 

[IT Minion]

Yes that was the source of my info - the fact that you googled it and found it proves you didn't know about it until i mentioned the 23% eairler

That article you keep quoting, it does not mean what you think it means.

It means that, at the most eccentric point in the 100,00 year cycle the difference between solar irradiance will vary by 23% over the period of a year.

Right now we're around 3% variation. So in about 50,000 years or so the climate is likely to be different as the Northern hemisphere will be a lot sunnier in winter and less well lit in Summer.

 

[Brigadier]

Read the info in the link

I'm asking you what you think it says.

 

[berty3000]

I haven't shouted anybody down, I'm sorry if you are upset but you should have done your research before posting something based on misinformation.

Perhaps this will teach you to fact Check stuff before believing it next time

Yeah... not that I'm letting you off the hook here, and I am still waiting to understand how you are qualified to give this sort of aggressive advice but, out of interest...

Let's say you are face to face with the Nobel prize winner who featured in that film, or Princeton Physics Professor, William Happer, who argues that we don't have enough CO2... You are on stage with them being filmed before an audience. Are you just going scream at them and accuse them of misinformation, whilst fumbling around for your phone so you can go back to that website you keep reading?

If you had credible knowledge and qualifications and research background in this area, then there might be a great conversation. But as things stand, I can only imagine that security would need to be called to remove you from the building.

 

[berty3000]

And the methodology varied amongst the studies, in C13 they did read the abstracts I believe. In others they did not.

Right...

 

[IT Minion]

Let's say you are face to face with the Nobel prize winner who featured in that film, or Princeton Physics Professor, William Happer, who argues that we don't have enough CO2...

Physicist with no publications in climate science, heavily funded by the Mercer family advising on CO2 levels for plants. Yeah, great source there.

Why do the conspiracy nuts love 'debates'. Science isn't about debating, it's about data.

 

[denso13]

The argument is settled.

"Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

 

[nwgs]

The sea level hasn’t risen though

 

[aveatry]

The sea level hasn’t risen though

Yes but that is not the trap they have fallen into.
The fact that notch cannot come back and explain why melting sea ice does not make the sea level rise proves he is an idiot.

 

[denso13]

The sea level hasn’t risen though

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

 

[nwgs]

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

That’s not proof.