T
Theo520
Guest
we’ll just need to wait and see but I anticipate a more thorough response with this administration. NASA itself is making the 97% claim and cites their sources.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I’m not clear why you posted this link, especially since it leads to a listing of articles by a web page contributor with no special expertise on the subject.
But let’s do look at her claim in the article.
She lists some ways in which human beings deforest lands, but provides no data for actual amounts. She also leaves out the natural processes by which lands might be deforested. Then she makes the claim that about a billion tons of carbon are released into the air by deforestation. Okay, so what precisely was the proportion of that by human caused deforestation? Doesn’t say.
A little additional research tells us that forests, depending upon the type, actually capture and store between 250 and 640 metric tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Given the earth has about 4 billion hectares of forests, and assuming an average of 400 metric tonnes of carbon stored per hectare, that means forests sequester about 1.6 trillion metric tonnes of carbon per year.
Now given that Alina Bradford was citing in imperial weights when she wrote her article the 1 billion tons is actually less expressed in metric tonnes. A metric tonne is about 1.1 tons. Long story short, forests sequester about 1.1023113109244*1.6=1.76369809748 trillion tons of carbon per year.
So the one billion tons of carbon put into the atmosphere by deforestation represents .00058% of the amount of carbon sequestered by the forests each year.
Anyone can throw around large numbers and make them appear significant. The real question, however, is always one of perspective. A lesson we keep needing to learn is that what writers don’t tell us is often far more significant than what they do tell us.
Last edited:
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
I’ve been enjoying someone else taking the reigns, he’s wiping the floor.
ps: Greenland is melting. In the center of the ice sheet are you aware it’s 2 miles deep?
The indigenous people in the area that dog sled no longer know if their sons will be hunters, the glaciers are melting, the ice sheet which “is” 80 percent of the place is melting.
And you are concerned that my postings are not peer reviewed scientific studies??? For the purpose of talking on “this” forum, they are…hahaha
After all, global warming was created by the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive, and with the winters being “brutal”…“manufacturing”,hahaha
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Yes, of course the CIA always puts that specific disclaimer on their documents. Would you suppose the CIA has anything like an official position?
As to not “predicting global cooling” I suppose one would have to read between the lines as to what would make the climate “agriculturally optimal” as opposed to “neo-boreal”.
You do understand that boreal is another name for northern taiga regions of the high northern latitudes where average annual temperatures range from about +5° to -5° C. Hence, “neo-boreal” would be a climate change towards temperatures averaging about +5° to -5° C in much of the world.
That would be CIA code for global cooling and agriculturally sub-suboptimal. Hence the concern of the leading western climatologists. So you are correct, it didn’t say “most scientists,” it just said the leading climate scientists of the day. I.e., the elite climatologists of the time. Read the first line of the paper.
See how easy things are when someone explains the hard parts?
C’mon Leaf, this isn’t like you.
Perhaps she could teach some courses on reading for technical meaning instead of purely at-face, simplistic, and ignoring all the high fallootin’ scientific jargon that makes reading hard.
You aren’t seriously implying the document wasn’t from the CIA, are you?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I am implying that it is not a replacement for a claim that a significant proportion of scientists predicted global warming, which was your claim. I don’t know what you hoped to prove by citing this CIA paper.LeafByNiggle:
You aren’t seriously implying the document wasn’t from the CIA, are you?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And getting deeper the past few years, especially 2017 when it gained record amounts of ice that year. In fact, up 370% from 2009.
Greenland always melts a little in July.
All within the normal range for Greenland.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I never claimed “a significant proportion of scientists.” My claim was always something like a “consensus of the leading climatologists.” Very different claims.HarryStotle:
I am implying that it is not a replacement for a claim that a significant proportion of scientists predicted global warming, which was your claim. I don’t know what you hoped to prove by citing this CIA paper.LeafByNiggle:
You aren’t seriously implying the document wasn’t from the CIA, are you?
Again, perhaps your wife ought to begin teaching a course in reading for meaning and not reading your own impressions into what others write."
I am suspicious that the account of the real LeafByNiggle has been commandeered by someone pretending to be her/him. Level of argumentation and writing style seem very different from previous.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Okay, let’s go over the hard parts once more.
The point of the CIA document was that the paper was written to guide the CIA as an agency. It clearly took the issue of climate cooling very seriously, as reflected in the document, because it impacted a number of areas in terms of national security and global peace. It predicted food shortages and subsequent political destabilization as a result, and was proposed as a guidance document for what the agency might expect over the next decades.
The CIA took the consensus of the world’s leading climatologists very seriously. The document therefore shows it wasn’t just a fringe idea, it was the prevailing view of the leading experts – perhaps not the view of all or most (nor 97% of) scientists in every unrelated field, just the leading world-class climatologists. Check the footnotes at the end of the paper and look up the research bona fides of those individuals.
Never mind, I’ve figured out your MO.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
For a sample to be representative it has to be random, which is what the set of 12k papers purported to be, and what selecting 4k of them because they met a specific criterion is not. Even the Cook paper itself only claims that 97% of the papers expressing an opinion (still a dubious claim) believe in AGW, leaving it to advocates like yourself to trumpet the results as applying universally.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, the sample only needs to be uncorrelated with the parameter being sampled - in this case, agreement with some specified level of AGW. There is no reason to believe that scientists who write about methods of calibrating satellite sensors are any more or less likely to agree with AGW than scientists who write about global warming directly and its causes.LeafByNiggle:
For a sample to be representative it has to be random…
Since there is such a strong interest in disproving the Cook et. al. claim of 97% from forces like WattsUpWithThat, etc. I am very surprised that none of them have funded and carried out a contrary study of the literature, or used some other method of assessing scientific consensus, to show that the level of agreement is much lower, like maybe 80% or 70% or even lower. Why are they not trying to out do Cook? Is it possibly because they can’t? All they can do is throw ineffective stones at a study they don’t like.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But there is no evidence that document ever became the position of the CIA. It was the view of the authors alone.LeafByNiggle:
Okay, let’s go over the hard parts once more.
The point of the CIA document was that the paper was written to guide the CIA as an agency.
The author of the article may have taken the issue very seriously, but regarding the CIA, not so much. This is a very indirect and unreliable way of assessing scientific consensus of the 1960s and 1970s.
The author of the article took the word of a few climatologists meeting in Bonn (so the story goes). I have not found any independent verification of what those meeting in Bonn actually said. Why don’t you link to one of their statements rather than to a third party assessment of what those scientists said? In fact I have no way of knowing if the entire scanned photocopied document is not a fake. I’m not saying it is a fake, but just that its provenance is lacking.
You cannot assess any kind of consensus by only considering those who agree with one side of the question. Cook counted those who for and against AGW. In attempting to establish a different consensus during the 1970s you are only counting those who profess global cooling. This methodology does not come close to the objectivity of Cook’s methodology. So it seems odd that one would use such a flawed methodology to attack a much better methodology.
T
Theo520
Guest
Big win for international climate lawyers.
We all know the last think poor Kenyans need is affordable and reliable power /sarc
www.theguardian.com
We all know the last think poor Kenyans need is affordable and reliable power /sarc
Kenya's first coal plant construction paused in climate victory
Owners failed to assess environmental concerns, court rules
www.theguardian.com
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
A hard win legislation in the 70’s which placed emissions from cars, factories and companies in line, had us seeing better air quality by the 90’s through these clean air regulations.
And now we can thank the Trump administration for rolling back regulations on coal power plants and auto’s.
“The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, OK? They’re at a record level.”
No Mr. Trump, arctic sea ice is decreasing and is at a record low since 2007.
what a hoot
And now we can thank the Trump administration for rolling back regulations on coal power plants and auto’s.
“The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, OK? They’re at a record level.”
No Mr. Trump, arctic sea ice is decreasing and is at a record low since 2007.
what a hoot
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
You are ill informed
The regulations that gave us clean air by the 90’s are still in place. The air will not become more polluted.
Trump rolled back Obama regulations that were largely never implemented and were frankly stupid in design. It was never technically feasible for ICE vehicles to average 50 mpg.
Obama’s Climate Plan Was a Failure on All Accounts
The Trump administration is dismantling President Barack Obama’s climate legacy piece by piece, and this week it’s taking an axe to arguably the biggest piece. In an expected move, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt officially began the process of rolling back the...
www.heritage.org
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
No, you are ill informed. Obama strengthened environmental regulations and here we have the current admin.
Lets move forward to today: Jul 10, 2019 · The Trump administration is rewriting Obama-era rules governing pollution from oil and gas operations and coal ash dumps , moves that opponents say will significantly weaken protections for human health and the environment. The EPA announced the changes Thursday, March 1, the latest in series of actions in the last year to roll back regulations…
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Taken from “Friends of the Earth” and D. Trump quotes…amazing:
We think he’s alluding to a common myth spread by climate change deniers. It goes something like, “The planet has warmed and cooled since time began. So climate change is natural; it isn’t caused by humans”.
What’s the truth?
Cycles of cooling and warming have occurred throughout history. But they don’t explain the current trend of rapid warming. To even hint they do is grossly misleading. 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2001. The five warmest – all since 2010.
This much faster warming corresponds with increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the industrial age. In other words, human beings have been changing the climate primarily by burning oil, coal and gas. But Donald knows that. He was part of a business coalition demanding meaningful action on “scientifically irrefutable” climate change back in 2009.
oh Donald
“There is a cooling, and there’s a heating.”
What did he mean?We think he’s alluding to a common myth spread by climate change deniers. It goes something like, “The planet has warmed and cooled since time began. So climate change is natural; it isn’t caused by humans”.
What’s the truth?
Cycles of cooling and warming have occurred throughout history. But they don’t explain the current trend of rapid warming. To even hint they do is grossly misleading. 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2001. The five warmest – all since 2010.
This much faster warming corresponds with increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the industrial age. In other words, human beings have been changing the climate primarily by burning oil, coal and gas. But Donald knows that. He was part of a business coalition demanding meaningful action on “scientifically irrefutable” climate change back in 2009.
oh Donald
T
Theo520
Guest
Did trump roll back any regulations that existed pre-Obama era? NO, so you are incorrect.
Which of these Obama ‘improvements’ had actually taken effect? If they haven’t then nothing but documentation was rolled back.
Sadly you are just posturing and avoiding the facts.
T
Theo520
Guest
Don’t think so. When the ACE rule is fully implemented, U.S. power plant emissions will be 35% lower than they were in 2005.
You may want more, but it’s dishonest of you to claim this is a regression on the standards that were implemented in the market.
E
Ender
Guest
Foreman: “Your honor, we have unanimous agreement that the defendant is guilty.”
Judge: “All twelve of you agree on this?”
Foreman: “No sir, eight haven’t taken a position, but the four that have expressed an opinion all agree. That’s 100%.”
That’s all the Cook study said: of those who expressed an opinion 97% agreed.
As I said before, it isn’t necessary to provide the right answer to show that someone else’s answer is wrong.
If you apply this standard to the CIA surely you must realize it applies equally to the folks at NASA. The documents represent the views of the authors alone.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Inapt analogy, because in a jury it is expected that all 12 members of the jury are to express their opinion. In the case of someone writing a paper about calibration methods for measuring global warming, that expectation is missing.LeafByNiggle:
Foreman: “Your honor, we have unanimous agreement that the defendant is guilty.”
Judge: “All twelve of you agree on this?”
Foreman: “No sir, eight haven’t taken a position, but the four that have expressed an opinion all agree. That’s 100%.”
That’s all the Cook study said: of those who expressed an opinion 97% agreed.
Still, it is surprising that none on that side have even tried. It is surprising because a contrary study with vastly different results would be much more convincing than what they are doing now. I can’t believe they wouldn’t do it if it were that easy.
Not applicable. The “document” cited by HS has no independent verification that it even came from the CIA and is not just a faked photocopy, much less that it was the accepted position by anyone other than the author, whereas there are plenty of ways to verify that the positions voiced by NASA really do come from NASA.
Last edited:
- Status