U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-13-2014, 06:28 PM
 
17,328 posts, read 7,527,733 times
Reputation: 7781

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
I actually do know the answer to my question. It's funny you had to go back to 1996 for peer reviewed articles. Yeah, in 1996 and in 2001 there was less of a consensus. Not now. Here is a pie chart.




Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Pie Chart
Actually that pie charts been pretty close to 1000:1 for a couple years now. The only real debate in my mind is, is it peer pressure to not be one of the 1%, or better science thats changed it from a 99% agreement into a 99.9% one.

Either way-yeah
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2014, 06:29 PM
 
12,978 posts, read 10,243,774 times
Reputation: 5370
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Anything the government tries to do especially with the well-spoken and clean idiot in the WH does instantly turns to crap.
The working entity that is the government changes slowly over time and is actually pretty independent of who are in the upper political appointee jobs.

Some are folk who probably could not cut it in the free market. Others are at the level of the best of the free market. Overall the federal government people are pretty good. At least as good as a big corporation.

And virtually all of what they do goes on just fine.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2014, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 1,534,205 times
Reputation: 1072
So I looked up an abstract of one of the papers listed above. As it happens, I chose the last one. Here's the abstract:

Quote:
Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause—the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere—has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. Comparable increases are evident in climate model experiments. The latter show that human-induced changes in ozone and well-mixed greenhouse gases account for ∼80% of the simulated rise in tropopause height over 1979–1999. Their primary contributions are through cooling of the stratosphere (caused by ozone) and warming of the troposphere (caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases). A model-predicted fingerprint of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) data sets. This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating.
I would say that, contrary to the claims of the person who posted it in the first place, this paper acknowledges anthropogenic climate change as well as shows that the relevant simulated results are supported by observation; it certainly doesn't claim to refute any of that. Why, if I didn't know better I'd say the guy just cut and pasted it without knowing anything about what it says.

And Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America doesn't really concern itself with modern-day issues at all, if the abstract's anything to go by (and it should be). Hard to see how it helps the denialist case, unless the denialist is the sort of denialist who makes the argument "well, the climate changed in the past due to natural causes so this temperature increase must be naturally caused too", which is a stupid argument and one not worth bothering with. Again.

Quote:
Global Warming is predicated largely on data presented by Mann, who is the chief architect for the IPCC, and what we're discovering is that his data is all bad.
No.

Quote:
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=30

You are fixating. Time to move on. But before you do, I'd like to add that Soon and Baliunas' work has long since been relegated to File 13. Not sure why you'd believe them when the rest of the world's climatologists have long since filled their paper full of holes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:17 AM
 
16,956 posts, read 9,771,688 times
Reputation: 8927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldous9 View Post
How many peer reviewed scientific papers reject the idea that humans are affecting the climate?
Like EVERY LIBERAL, you have the concept of science completely backward.

It is incumbent upon those promoting the hypothesis to PROVE, with a p<.05, that the hypothesis is true, not the other way around.

Otherwise, every outrageous contention is TRUE until proven otherwise. Thus, Bigfoot, Nessie, Leprechauns, Vampires, Werewolves, Unicorns, and Sea monsters are all REAL, as no one has proven them false. Thus liberalism.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 1,534,205 times
Reputation: 1072
Whining and crying about liberals doesn't make right-wing lies true, it just means denialists are liars who whine and cry about liberals. Now go read the Daily Mail. It'll help you pretend your talking points are true for a while and maybe you won't feel so sad about liberals any more.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 10:20 AM
 
24,989 posts, read 18,376,226 times
Reputation: 13871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Whining and crying about liberals doesn't make right-wing lies true, it just means denialists are liars who whine and cry about liberals. Now go read the Daily Mail. It'll help you pretend your talking points are true for a while and maybe you won't feel so sad about liberals any more.
once again i will post this, note that the graph shows a general cooling trend for the last 65 million years;

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings « JoNova

note also that even the 10000 year graph shows a general cooling trend as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 1,534,205 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
once again i will post this,
Why? Will that make it relevant or true? It's still a blog by a TV host and not any sort of reference worth referring to. Why not try scientific organizations? Oh, I know. Fraud, conspiracy, follow the imaginary trail of imaginary money, etc.

Your little blog is nicely formatted, but it has no scientific merit. If it's not good enough for a doctoral thesis, it's not good enough for me. Why do I have to keep saying that?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:49 PM
 
24,989 posts, read 18,376,226 times
Reputation: 13871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Why? Will that make it relevant or true? It's still a blog by a TV host and not any sort of reference worth referring to. Why not try scientific organizations? Oh, I know. Fraud, conspiracy, follow the imaginary trail of imaginary money, etc.

Your little blog is nicely formatted, but it has no scientific merit. If it's not good enough for a doctoral thesis, it's not good enough for me. Why do I have to keep saying that?
so apparently a geologist is now just a blogger when they disagree with you?

Quote:
David Lappi is a geologist from Alaska who has sent in a set of beautiful graphs–including an especially prosaic one of the last 10,000 years in Greenland–that he put together himself (and which I’ve copied here at the top).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Austin
26,807 posts, read 12,493,631 times
Reputation: 6945
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Like EVERY LIBERAL, you have the concept of science completely backward.

It is incumbent upon those promoting the hypothesis to PROVE, with a p<.05, that the hypothesis is true, not the other way around.

Otherwise, every outrageous contention is TRUE until proven otherwise. Thus, Bigfoot, Nessie, Leprechauns, Vampires, Werewolves, Unicorns, and Sea monsters are all REAL, as no one has proven them false. Thus liberalism.
Yes, and the AGW alarmists probably would agree with the Bigfoot advocates if they could get government funding for bigfoot research.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Austin
26,807 posts, read 12,493,631 times
Reputation: 6945
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
so apparently a geologist is now just a blogger when they disagree with you?
Anyone who disagrees with the AGW alarmists is just a blogger. Like Al Gore said "the science is settled". What that means is they don't want to debate because they know they will lose.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top