Our Oceans are Under Attack

Petros, over a year ago you raised this same question about CO2, displaying the same exact chart, here. The discussion went on for a few pages. The two answers that I gave that seem most relevant are here and here. If you didn't find either of those answers persuasive I doubt there is much I can further add that you will find useful.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You also suggest that this graph shows a temperature discrepancy between predicted and actual temperatures. Since you didn't provide a link for your source it's hard to make a useful comment. But I would note that "actual" temperature pertains to mid-troposphere temperatures, not combined troposphere, land, and ocean temperatures. The ocean is by far the 800lb gorilla in the room. The total picture shows a consistent increase in heat content.


Figure 2: Change of heat content in the ocean (blue) and in the land + atmosphere + ice (red)
(From Peter Glieck based on data from Church et al 2011; GRL 38, L18601).

If temperatures aren’t rising, where does the heat go?

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

 

From the online Wall Street Journal (full article in the link)

"Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

Thankyou Wavepropulsion

But those are "lesser' scientists than Climatologists.
Some AGWer will claim their opinions doesn't count.

 

That 16 year old petition is highly suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

 

Well, for mantaining some reasonings another member of this forum was called something as conspiranoid. If you apply same analysis for both sides may be is better.

 

I can't read the WSJ article because it is behind a paywall. However, here are two articles commenting on it. Neither are behind a paywall.


WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth | SALON

The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming | SKEPTICAL SCIENCE

 

Ok, so once it became clear that climate change was worth looking into, a body was created to do the job. This is about as surprising as the Department of Defence being created to handle defence once it was realised something should be done about it.

I've bolded a few bits you missed.

 

Translation: the people who have the qualifications most likely to enable them to assess the relevant science do not vote Republican.

I should add that I don't vote for either Republicans or Democrats, not being in the US, so don't have a dog in that fight. Personally I'll vote for whoever seems to be the most competent and/or useful at the time.

Nor do I have an advanced degree.

 

They are speaking outside their field of expertise. I wouldn't necessarily assume that a climatologist knows more about physics than a physicist either. Or that a biologist knows more about engineering than an engineer, or that the engineer knows more about biology.

 

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

 

Ok, so what's your point, other than that Bast is immediately highly suspect?

 

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

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 scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental 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.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

 

My former post is from that article, dated this year.
Obviously what we haver here is not a scientific discussion but a political discussion.
So, once more: I ask who is benefited, and I alredy partially asked.

 

You should give your source for that quote, since it's obviously copy/pasted from somewhere.

 

No. What we have here is a scientific issue that has political ramifications. That does not mean the scientific issue does not exist or is fraudulent, simply that it has real world effects rather than being strictly an academic matter.