Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sh

[Procrustes Stretched]

Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet

No agenda here, just Scientific evidence and a search for truth. Scientists will keep working on it until they have a consensus. You'd better believe it, because that's how science works.

In the last month, there’s been much attention to a cool patch in the North Atlantic Ocean, where record cold temperatures over the past eight months present a stark contrast to a globe that is experiencing record warmth. And although there is certainly no consensus on the matter yet, some scientists think this pattern may be a sign of one long-feared consequence of climate change — a slowing of North Atlantic ocean circulation, due to a freshening of surface waters.

The cause, goes the thinking, would be the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet, whose large freshwater flows may weaken ocean “overturning” by reducing the density of cold surface waters (colder, salty water is denser). If cold, salty waters don’t sink in the North Atlantic and flow back southward toward Antarctica at depth, then warm surface waters won’t flow northward to take their place. The result could be a significant change to northern hemisphere climate, as less ocean-borne heat reaches higher latitudes.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and the linked article in the OP says that there are now "two new studies just out in Nature Geoscience" that "underscore why scientists have a good reason to think this sort of thing can happen" —

What we think we know (according to the best science available right now) about the past (as studied with science) on multiple occasions

but I wonder, will the science deniers attack anything that comes out of a group that believes in global warming?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be because of manmade global warming

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then there is this here -- reminiscent of a scary childhood memory -- the movie -- The Blob! or more correctly, a blob in the North Atlantic


cool stuff from that leftist organization NOAA on the pages
Everything you need to know about the surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic ocean

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be because of manmade global warming

Causes could be found without having to eliminate the impossible. Having faith in science is not akin to having faith in a religion.

 

[jc456]

Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet

No agenda here, just Scientific evidence and a search for truth. Scientists will keep working on it until they have a consensus. You'd better believe it, because that's how science works.

In the last month, there’s been much attention to a cool patch in the North Atlantic Ocean, where record cold temperatures over the past eight months present a stark contrast to a globe that is experiencing record warmth. And although there is certainly no consensus on the matter yet, some scientists think this pattern may be a sign of one long-feared consequence of climate change — a slowing of North Atlantic ocean circulation, due to a freshening of surface waters.

The cause, goes the thinking, would be the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet, whose large freshwater flows may weaken ocean “overturning” by reducing the density of cold surface waters (colder, salty water is denser). If cold, salty waters don’t sink in the North Atlantic and flow back southward toward Antarctica at depth, then warm surface waters won’t flow northward to take their place. The result could be a significant change to northern hemisphere climate, as less ocean-borne heat reaches higher latitudes.​

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

interesting bit of intelligence here...

Consensus is not just for standards
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.

That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact.

Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it

 

[jc456]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

a consensus on the science -- what it means. the oceans are telling us something, but we can't hear it for the noise coming out of wingnut world

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

 

[jc456]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

so, hmmmmmm......again, show me where consensus exists in science. It was a simple request. It's obvious you can't. Then you have the nerve to state I quoted someone. Huh? If I quote someone, I acknowledge it. I requested evidence that consensus exists. you can't, my statement proved.

Do I believe in Global warming/ Define your question. Do I believe the globe is warm? yes in specific regions of the planet. Do I believe it is currently warming? Depends, most mornings are cooler then later in the afternoons in most regions of the planet, but the day to day temperatures are not increasing today at peak times of a day. And the satellite records show it. In fact, the IPCC AR5 document agrees in the pause.

Was the globe warming throughout the history of the planet, definitely, we'd still be on ice if not. Duh....

man made climate, prove it. It's all I've ever asked, to date 15 months since the first request and zippo!!!!!! bubba.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

so, hmmmmmm......again, show me where consensus exists in science. It was a simple request. It's obvious you can't. Then you have the nerve to state I quoted someone. Huh? If I quote someone, I acknowledge it. I requested evidence that consensus exists. you can't, my statement proved.

Do I believe in Global warming/ Define your question. Do I believe the globe is warm? yes in specific regions of the planet. Do I believe it is currently warming? Depends, most mornings are cooler then later in the afternoons in most regions of the planet, but the day to day temperatures are not increasing today at peak times of a day. And the satellite records show it. In fact, the IPCC AR5 document agrees in the pause.

Was the globe warming throughout the history of the planet, definitely, we'd still be on ice if not. Duh....

man made climate, prove it. It's all I've ever asked, to date 15 months since the first request and zippo!!!!!! bubba.

You're making shit up. No one says a consensus is equivalent to a scientific method. That may be what your mind is telling you people are saying, but science shows people often hear what they want to hear regardless of what is being said.

evidence that there is a consensus in the scientific community on climate change science? are you for real? Do you know how the term consensus is being used or you making up your own conversation between you and a caricature in your mind?

humor you once...

this was posted already and you know it:

Consensus is not just for standards
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.

That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact. Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it
​

No one who believes in global warming has claimed the globe doesn't have periods where it has chilled and warmed up. That is not the debate and you know it. Do you believe the globe has warmed in recent years and that all the scientific data suggest it is unusual?

What is it with the pause shit? The globe has warmed. The warming has stalled. So what? The IPCC? NASA and NOAA have data and I follow them. Dante has never engaged in debates over the IPCC. It's a red herring

 

[jc456]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

so, hmmmmmm......again, show me where consensus exists in science. It was a simple request. It's obvious you can't. Then you have the nerve to state I quoted someone. Huh? If I quote someone, I acknowledge it. I requested evidence that consensus exists. you can't, my statement proved.

Do I believe in Global warming/ Define your question. Do I believe the globe is warm? yes in specific regions of the planet. Do I believe it is currently warming? Depends, most mornings are cooler then later in the afternoons in most regions of the planet, but the day to day temperatures are not increasing today at peak times of a day. And the satellite records show it. In fact, the IPCC AR5 document agrees in the pause.

Was the globe warming throughout the history of the planet, definitely, we'd still be on ice if not. Duh....

man made climate, prove it. It's all I've ever asked, to date 15 months since the first request and zippo!!!!!! bubba.

You're making shit up. No one says a consensus is equivalent to a scientific method. That may be what your mind is telling you people are saying, but science shows people often hear what they want to hear regardless of what is being said.

evidence that there is a consensus in the scientific community on climate change science? are you for real? Do you know how the term consensus is being used or you making up your own conversation between you and a caricature in your mind?

humor you once...

this was posted already and you know it:

Consensus is not just for standards
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.

That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact. Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it
​

No one who believes in global warming has claimed the globe doesn't have periods where it has chilled and warmed up. That is not the debate and you know it. Do you believe the globe has warmed in recent years and that all the scientific data suggest it is unusual?

What is it with the pause shit? The globe has warmed. The warming has stalled. So what? The IPCC? NASA and NOAA have data and I follow them. Dante has never engaged in debates over the IPCC. It's a red herring

yeah, yeah, as expected. Take the evade the question route. Obvious. It's simple, do you agree there is such a thing as consensus in science? it's a yes or no answer. Why do you avoid it? ahhh, cause you can't prove it.

The fact is the satellite data shows no global warming.

Tell me, let's say the globe was warming, what is wrong with that? Would you rather live on ice?

You asked me about man made climate as well. No response on mine? oh, yeah, again you can't prove what your religion tells you to believe.

Funny stuff bubba.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

then what other word would you jc456 use to describe the consensus NASA scientists' reached about the promise of being able to not only land men on the moon but bring them back - safely?

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

so, hmmmmmm......again, show me where consensus exists in science. It was a simple request. It's obvious you can't. Then you have the nerve to state I quoted someone. Huh? If I quote someone, I acknowledge it. I requested evidence that consensus exists. you can't, my statement proved.

Do I believe in Global warming/ Define your question. Do I believe the globe is warm? yes in specific regions of the planet. Do I believe it is currently warming? Depends, most mornings are cooler then later in the afternoons in most regions of the planet, but the day to day temperatures are not increasing today at peak times of a day. And the satellite records show it. In fact, the IPCC AR5 document agrees in the pause.

Was the globe warming throughout the history of the planet, definitely, we'd still be on ice if not. Duh....

man made climate, prove it. It's all I've ever asked, to date 15 months since the first request and zippo!!!!!! bubba.

You're making shit up. No one says a consensus is equivalent to a scientific method. That may be what your mind is telling you people are saying, but science shows people often hear what they want to hear regardless of what is being said.

evidence that there is a consensus in the scientific community on climate change science? are you for real? Do you know how the term consensus is being used or you making up your own conversation between you and a caricature in your mind?

humor you once...

this was posted already and you know it:

Consensus is not just for standards
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.

That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact. Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it
​

No one who believes in global warming has claimed the globe doesn't have periods where it has chilled and warmed up. That is not the debate and you know it. Do you believe the globe has warmed in recent years and that all the scientific data suggest it is unusual?

What is it with the pause shit? The globe has warmed. The warming has stalled. So what? The IPCC? NASA and NOAA have data and I follow them. Dante has never engaged in debates over the IPCC. It's a red herring

yeah, yeah, as expected. Take the evade the question route. Obvious. It's simple, do you agree there is such a thing as consensus in science? it's a yes or no answer. Why do you avoid it? ahhh, cause you can't prove it.

The fact is the satellite data shows no global warming.

Tell me, let's say the globe was warming, what is wrong with that? Would you rather live on ice?

You asked me about man made climate as well. No response on mine? oh, yeah, again you can't prove what your religion tells you to believe.

Funny stuff bubba.

ok. you've been shown an example of a consensus on the science of hiv/aids. you chose to twice ignore it.

NASA Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position
​

I'll take the word of NASA over you, the dailycaller, and the fiction author

If NASA came out today and said they were in error it would not matter to me personally. Unlike you I do not believe in conspiracies

 

[jc456]

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

well first, there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science. How about confirmation, verification, validate. But see that assumes testing and the exchange of material to do. In Climate science that just isn't happening.

Can you post up an experiment that shows what 20 PPM of CO2 can do with heat?

"there is no such thing as 'consensus' in science"
So, you quote a fiction author by the name of Michael Crichton?

Simple statement: "A consensus has been reached within the scientific community." What is there to disagree with?

Your comments about what is happening in climate science is false. Do you also conflate climate science with global warming? Like when some people say Liberal in place of Democrat as if they are one and the same?

Not being or playing a scientist or science geek on the web I have no idea about CO2. I trust the scientific community. Imagine that? Then again NASA, NOAA, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science say the globe is warming and man is contributing to that, and they could all be contributing to a vast world wide conspiracy to what?

Do you disagree the globe warming? Do you believe man plays any part in the climate?

so, hmmmmmm......again, show me where consensus exists in science. It was a simple request. It's obvious you can't. Then you have the nerve to state I quoted someone. Huh? If I quote someone, I acknowledge it. I requested evidence that consensus exists. you can't, my statement proved.

Do I believe in Global warming/ Define your question. Do I believe the globe is warm? yes in specific regions of the planet. Do I believe it is currently warming? Depends, most mornings are cooler then later in the afternoons in most regions of the planet, but the day to day temperatures are not increasing today at peak times of a day. And the satellite records show it. In fact, the IPCC AR5 document agrees in the pause.

Was the globe warming throughout the history of the planet, definitely, we'd still be on ice if not. Duh....

man made climate, prove it. It's all I've ever asked, to date 15 months since the first request and zippo!!!!!! bubba.

You're making shit up. No one says a consensus is equivalent to a scientific method. That may be what your mind is telling you people are saying, but science shows people often hear what they want to hear regardless of what is being said.

evidence that there is a consensus in the scientific community on climate change science? are you for real? Do you know how the term consensus is being used or you making up your own conversation between you and a caricature in your mind?

humor you once...

this was posted already and you know it:

Consensus is not just for standards
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.

That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact. Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it
​

No one who believes in global warming has claimed the globe doesn't have periods where it has chilled and warmed up. That is not the debate and you know it. Do you believe the globe has warmed in recent years and that all the scientific data suggest it is unusual?

What is it with the pause shit? The globe has warmed. The warming has stalled. So what? The IPCC? NASA and NOAA have data and I follow them. Dante has never engaged in debates over the IPCC. It's a red herring

yeah, yeah, as expected. Take the evade the question route. Obvious. It's simple, do you agree there is such a thing as consensus in science? it's a yes or no answer. Why do you avoid it? ahhh, cause you can't prove it.

The fact is the satellite data shows no global warming.

Tell me, let's say the globe was warming, what is wrong with that? Would you rather live on ice?

You asked me about man made climate as well. No response on mine? oh, yeah, again you can't prove what your religion tells you to believe.

Funny stuff bubba.

ok. you've been shown an example of a consensus on the science of hiv/aids. you chose to twice ignore it.

NASA Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position
​

I'll take the word of NASA over you, the dailycaller, and the fiction author

If NASA came out today and said they were in error it would not matter to me personally. Unlike you I do not believe in conspiracies

come now, can't you do any better than that? You obviously didn't read what you posted. You should actually read it.

And posting something from a poll is not consensus of anything. First off, the questions aren't there on what the 97% answered, nor how many participated. I believe the number was 75 out of 77. Hmmm 77 scientists. huh? just one question, did you receive communion and drink the wine? Religion, no scientific evidence of any of what you post up bubba. Man made, still haven't responded. Huh?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus​

Why the Earth’s past has scientists so worried about the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation

What is it people like jc456 don't get?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Uh oh! Now those damn lefty Stanford Scientists are in on the conspiracy!!!

 

[jc456]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Friend, I really give two racoons nuts what you believe. Everything you've posted is bullshit so you know. You make a statement that you aren't following the IPCC and then post info about it.

The facts are this, you can't prove global warming and you can't prove man made climate anything. until then, you believe what you want, but don't post up on a message board unless you have evidence.

Post some up and let's rehash this all. But until then bubba, your climate whatever is dead and is only your belief.