Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Now dumb fuck, are you saying that all the scientists in the world are subsidized by the US Government? If so, why has not the orange clown stopped that? Since all the Scientific Societies of every nation agree that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The root word of the I in IPCC is government.
The Orange clown appointed Pruitt so he is doing something about it. Not that easy to fire fed employees. Especially after thirty years of infiltrating the department with AGW scammers and parasites.

 

[SSDD]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

Your ignorance is showing...in the first 6 months of 2018, 254 papers have been published that question the consensus view of climate change.

These papers generally vary on one of 4 points from consensus science and call the consensus into question,

1. Natural process play much more than a "negligible" role in climate change which includes temperature changes, weather events precipitation patterns, etc, and the effects of CO2 on climate change are far less than imagined, or not existent at all.

2. Warming, sea levels, ice retreat/melting, hurricane intensity, drought intensity/length, etc in the modern era are neither remarkable, nor unprecedented nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

3. Climate models are neither reliable, nor consistently accurate and predictions of future conditions or events are little more than wild assed guesses since the error and uncertainty range with which these models project are very large in a non linear system.

4. That current CO2 reduction policies especially as they relate to the call for increased renewables are generally ineffective and very often harmful to the environment while elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide benefits that the "consensus" is completely overlooking such as a greener planet, increased arable land and increased crop yields.

Now, should I begin to inundate you with peer reviewed, published papers which call the consensus into question, or would you care to retract your idiot claim that there are no papers which differ far from the consensus?

 

[edthecynic]

Burger flippers usually don't even know the difference between CO, and CO2.

Spam flippers might. Just saying.

I'll bet YOU do!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Wow! That is a lot of numbers.
Don't tell Fort Fun, he's allergic.

 

[edthecynic]

the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.\
Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.30C or .15C

You gotta just love the hypocrisy of the deniers, a .15C difference is so enormous it completely discredits AWG, but when I showed the combined errors of Christy and Spencer at UAH totaled .21C the denires said that error was insignificant!!!!!

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.21C or .15C

 

[Sunsettommy]

the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.\
Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.30C or .15C

You gotta just love the hypocrisy of the deniers, a .15C difference is so enormous it completely discredits AWG, but when I showed the combined errors of Christy and Spencer at UAH totaled .21C the denires said that error was insignificant!!!!!

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.21C or .15C

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Notice his deflection from what the IPCC says about Per Decade prediction/projection to what Satellite data currently shows? He moves to whine about something that were fixed over a decade ago.....

The errors which were quickly fixed when brought up was done YEARS ago, such as 13 and more years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Now dumb fuck, are you saying that all the scientists in the world are subsidized by the US Government? If so, why has not the orange clown stopped that? Since all the Scientific Societies of every nation agree that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The root word of the I in IPCC is government.
The Orange clown appointed Pruitt so he is doing something about it. Not that easy to fire fed employees. Especially after thirty years of infiltrating the department with AGW scammers and parasites.

No, Pruitt is no longer doing anything at all in the government. The corrupt asshole got himself fired for even overreaching
Trump scale corruption.

 

[Old Rocks]

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Once again you damage the warmist argument by posting this chart, thank you!

Once again you prove what an idiot you truly are. There is a very strong warming trend displayed on that chart.

I never said it wasn't warming, but the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.30C or .15C

Now Tommy, me lad, how so? Lowest point to highest point on the chart, -0.5. 1984, to highest point, nearly 0.8, in 2016, gives you around 0.3 per decade. Lowest average, about -0.4, in 1985, to about 0.5 in 2017 gives you over 0.2 per decade. And 0.2 per decade is substantial, as we can see from the shrinking of the sea ice in the north polar cap.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

That wasn't a poll. It was based on studies that read abstracts. And it included the ones with NO expressed opinion into the yes category. The worse place to look for opinion is in the abstract of tech papers. Even if they quoted OTHER scientists -- it was counted as their opinion. Even if all the 4 or 8 authors on the papers didn't agree -- it was counted. It's a sham.

And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science.
I like my scientific ACTUAL polling on HUNDREDS of questions better. Because it's better science.

The question is, "Does global warming actually exist" Answer, yes. Next question. Are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere the cause, or at least a substantial part of the cause? Answer for all the Scientific Societies in the world, yes. Now that is a consensus. Now, can a scientific consensus be wrong. The answer is yes, but very seldom, especially when we understand the basic cause, that being the absorption spectra of the GHGs.

That's just the justification for further study. There are no conclusions in there ANYWHERE about magnitude or progression of the detected warming. And if there is not consensus about the TOOLS and methods --- we are nowhere even CLOSE to making those prognostications.

I have no problems whatsoever with what you just stated. I'd say that even NECESSARY to justify A LOT of Climate Science. But you know as well I do that so much of this has been misrepresented, over-exaggerated and mangled by the press and political leadership that there needs to be a more cautious approach to MAKING predictions and a HALT to fear mongering.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Hasn't even reached 560ppm which would be the 1st doubling since the Industrial Revolution began. CO2 has some power left to create an atmos heating. But it's logarithmically handicapped. And a doubling nowhere NEAR "doubles the temperature" of the planet. It's about 1.1DegC without all the hysteria of accelerations and runaway feedbacks. And we're not THERE yet. Probably WON'T be there until close to 2060.. Because energy demand is flat -- no where NEAR the projections -- and Nat Gas has put the US back to 1990 emission levels IN SPITE of govt interference in the energy market.

So neither the "emissions scenarios" NOR the temperature modeling from the 80s and 90s is still in play. YET -- IT LIVES AND BREATHES DOOM and destruction on the Internet.

Look at how much the 3 El Ninos ADD to that anomaly in the Satellite record. Then look at the DECADAL rate of that whole plot. Which is 0.13DegC/decade something last time I checked. Even tho their Mean contribution is normalize out -- MOST of the records set were during these 3 periods.

Then go look for the El Ninos in the Surface Temp plots. They've been purged. They were there in 2000. But the cooks at the GISS/NOAA kitchens have sifted them out completely. So that what the PUBLIC sees is a LOT scarier and convincing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Now dumb fuck, are you saying that all the scientists in the world are subsidized by the US Government? If so, why has not the orange clown stopped that? Since all the Scientific Societies of every nation agree that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The root word of the I in IPCC is government.
The Orange clown appointed Pruitt so he is doing something about it. Not that easy to fire fed employees. Especially after thirty years of infiltrating the department with AGW scammers and parasites.

No, Pruitt is no longer doing anything at all in the government. The corrupt asshole got himself fired for even overreaching
Trump scale corruption.

Pruitt opposed EPA overreach. His successor will, too, thank god.
That will save lives.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927


Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS

OK.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927


Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS

OK.

You're not really an atmospherics PHD just because you register democrat.
Copying and pasting text from a lefty AGW propaganda site doesn't make you an expert either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a steaming load of denial. No warming since 1995!

I love it.

Does this look normal to you? It's called "Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Spraying" of heavy metal nano-particulates which is a program that has been going on in earnest since 1997.


View attachment 203401 View attachment 203401

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.......................................................................................

Yeah, this is totally normal......I know more than you.
View attachment 204076

Are the nano-particles added to the fuel?

 

[Dale Smith]

One of the moderators deleted my posts showing that geo-engineering using the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates...a program that has been in play since 1997 is responsible for the weather anomalies.

Since when did the mods decide that they were "experts" in this area??? Does this shit look like normal condensation trails to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the moderators deleted my posts showing that geo-engineering using the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates...a program that has been in play since 1997 is responsible for the weather anomalies.

Since when did the mods decide that they were "experts" in this area??? Does this shit look like normal condensation trails to you?

View attachment 204085 View attachment 204086 View attachment 204087

Yes, that's what water vapor looks like.

 

[abu afak]

Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses. Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.

Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`

 

[Dale Smith]

Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.


January 18, 2018
Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the Second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

In a Separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference in rankings is due to the different methods used by the two agencies to analyze global temperatures, although over the long-term the agencies’ records remain in strong agreement. Both analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2017’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.

“Despite colder than average temperatures in any one part of the world, temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we’ve seen over the last 40 years,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
[......]​

Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.

I will also provide quotes from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club of Rome as it pertains to their "sustainable development" agenda where the Hegelian Dialectic is put into play....hey, it's in their own words.

Step up, put up or STFU.....it's really that simple.

 

[abu afak]

Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.

I will also provide quotes from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club of Rome as it pertains to their "sustainable development" agenda where the Hegelian Dialectic is put into play....hey, it's in their own words.

Step up, put up or STFU.....it's really that simple.

You "call bullshit" on NASA/NOAA in between posting your Chemtrails Pix BS as the post above? (and 2 others already deleted)
You're kidding Right Mel!
Now stop hogging the machine and give the other Patients a chance.
Get the **** outa the real sections wack job.
bye.
`