Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

You still don't seem to understand what the term "greenhouse gas" means. Why is that?

One more time. Here is proof that rising CO2 levels cause an increase in temperature. Now keep in mind....CO2 is greenhouse gas.

 

once again you misrepresent science and data... in other words you lie your ass off....

First off all a phase relationship is not proof of causation but it does going a long way to ruling out the laggard as a cause.


secondly... I have posted 2 studies here in the last few pages which show that when you break the data down to monthly data air and ocean temps lead co2 consistently by 9 to 12 months.

here is one of the studies which should stop you lying...



http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html

In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).

And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."

So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?

Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?

Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."

 

The only thing that is a fraud is this paper and nearly everything on Twats Up wit Dat and everything you post about AGW.

 

Yes the data shows temps lead CO2 levels. The data also shows that CO2 can lead temps higher, although the effect is so immediate that they are essentially in concert.

Some day maybe you will understand this basic principle and the basics of CO2/temp relationships. But I doubt it, because you are a stupid Republican.

 

Tell me jem. Do you personally believe this 0.3 % bullshit?

These are the numbers from the paper “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” of which Monckton is a co-author. His own numbers destroy his argument and show how ridiculous it is how he calculates these percentages. The numbers for the papers rejecting the consensus are minuscule compared to the already tiny numbers Monckton calculated for papers endorsing the consensus:



These attacks aimed at the Cook et al. paper aren’t about honestly discussing the results and raising legitimate criticism. It’s more about discrediting a paper that gives a result that is easy to communicate to the public; a result that is also very easy to understand. Which is probably the reason this paper has struck a nerve among climate science deniers.
Which brings me to the real reason I’m again talking about the Cook et al. paper. What motivated me was the language Monckton uses throughout his blog post:
Cook et al., paid schoolboy interns in propaganda studies at Queensland Kindergarten, are not pleased with Legates et al. (2013), written by grown-ups, which demonstrated that the kids, surveying the abstracts of 11,944 papers on global climate change published from 1991-2012, had marked only 64 abstracts out of 11,944 as explicitly endorsing the IPCC’s version of consensus.

And he says for example the following about other papers that measure the scientific consensus:

"You’re going to like this: for the tiny tots’ desperation is hilariously self-evident. Their please-sir-me-too paper says it found exactly the same “97%” “consensus” as two earlier laughable and long-discredited head-count surveys, Doorstop & Zimmerframe (2009) and Scrambledegg et al. (2010)."

Changing the names of scientists to call them “Doorstop” (Doran), Zimmerframe (Zimmerman), and Scrambledegg (Anderegg) is extremely childish. He calls everyone that worked on the Cook et al. paper ”zit-faces”, “tiddlers”, “teenies”, and “tiny tots”, basically calling them children at every opportunity. While being as snarky and belittling as possible towards them. The whole post written by Monckton is chock-full of these kinds of personal attacks and he hurls insult after insult towards those that he’s critical about.

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/09/16/97-climate-consensus-denial-the-debunkers-again-not-debunked/

 

Less than one percent (the first 2 rows) were counted as expressly saying man is causing warming by cook.

now do you understand why you were being called a moron by people doing the math.

even if you take the third row... you get to 8.5%.
the fourth row... implicit only gives you another 25%... (and I have presented scientists who stated they were mis characterized)

but.....

the fifth row tells you 66% of the papers take no position.

So do you realize you why you were a moron when you were claiming 97% over and over an over.

That claim is total bullshit. Cooks own numbers tell you that only about a third of the papers endorse the idea of man made global warming.

Do the math.

 

that would be interesting...
every paper I have regarding the lead lag relationship conceded antartic temps lead co2.


So lets see the paper and the data. when is co2 moving in concert with temps? what temps are we talking about.

 

It's absurd to not count the top four categories as Lard Monkey turd did. Most papers are not going to expressly state a position. It is not the purpose of most papers to do so. The science is so obvious and accepted that the burden falls on the naysayers to disprove it. Climate science has moved way beyond the debate point about it. This is seen in the recent IPCC statement and the fact that every science org in the world agrees.


Another way to look at is, remove all the no position papers. Of the remaining, only 2% reject the consensus position.

In addition, The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.


Regardless. Trying to say only 0.3% of climate scientists agree that man has caused some or most of the warming over the last forty years is simply absurd.

The fact that you believe this is just more proof of how fucked up and deluded you are.

 

I am having trouble tracking your bs. First of all I think we all believe that cfcs and aerosols impact global warming. I think we all think cutting down trees might have an impact. I think watering golf courses in deserts may have an effect. So I would expect (as we see) very few papers to to say man has no impact on warming.


But.......

1. For years you have been saying 97% of climatologists say man is causing most of the global warming. Clearly that is unproven bullshit since 66% of the papers took no position.

so right there you have been a moron for years.

2. Next... you are saying that sure 2/3 of the papers have no finding of man made global warming but 97% of the papers who had a finding of man made global warming say man caused the global warming?

So what percentage of the papers stating man is causing warming would you expect to say man is causing warming? I would expect it to be 100% right?

I would expect 100 percent of people who take stances on the divinity of Jesus in Evangelical magazines support the consensus that Jesus is divine.

3. Which brings us to another problem what exactly is the consensus Cook was writing about. It is not apparent from his ambiguous categories. Apparently he uses 3 different consensus statements interchangeably.

 

The scientists were asked what their stance was. 97% agreed. The survey results matched the assumptions. It's very simple. 97% of climate scientists believe in man made global warming. Multiple surveys by various authors give similar results. For you to have the audacity to say it's .3% is beyond absurd and simply shows how fucked up you and your bullshit sources are. Monkcton is a fraud and a clown.

We know all the world's science organizations agree and NONE disagree. To then say that it's only 0.3% of climate scientists is ludicrous.