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.
I don't think we know how many climate scientists there are in the world. "But more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines (contributing) to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities."
And scientists from different fields work together at the same time. Like when archaeologists dig for dinosaur bones, the archaeologists work with different kinds of scientists. They work with scientists who carbon date, scientists who judge time by surrounding plant life, scientists who judge time by surrounding rocks, specialists in the species they are studying, ex.ex.
I would assume there are 10,000's of climate scientists in the world. And they are connected to scientists who study ice records, ocean currents, record temperatures, study clouds, study the atmosphere, study ancient temperatures, study living old trees, ex.ex.ex.ex.
And like the above link states, the whole "climate scientific community" says man made global warming is happening. And all of the other fields of science that work with the climate scientists (will also believe man made global warming is happening.)
When you count the scientists who work with the climate scientists, I think we are talking about 100,000's of scientists here?
I don't think we know how many climate scientists there are in the world. "But more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines (contributing) to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities."
The key word above is "contributing."
Don't you mean that "humans are certainly contributing"?
The keyword "contributing" actually detracts from your point. If scientists are only contributing to the studies, then they aren't the principals in the studies; so who cares what they contribute?
Isn't this the same logic used to discount any scientists and researchers that dissent from the MMGW mantra?
At some point the global warming alarmists are going to have step out on to the ice and admit that it's cold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Seems to me that both you and California831 are more concerned about religion than the science.
Yup, we are just out of a cold snap here...Coldest it's been for about three years, but we are talking about climate change in this thread, not seasonal weather.
It’s a stark reminder of the vagaries of short-term natural variability set against the backdrop of long-term global warming.
Even with the cold snap in the U.S., the world has continued to see above-average temperatures overall, with 2013 expected to wind up among the top 10 warmest on record. The last month to have global average surface temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in February of 1985.
Yep. What will they report for 2013 in total on the graph you posted earlier?
Originally Posted by sanspeur Yup, we are just out of a cold snap here...Coldest it's been for about three years, but we are talking about climate change in this thread, not seasonal weather.
It’s a stark reminder of the vagaries of short-term natural variability set against the backdrop of long-term global warming.
Even with the cold snap in the U.S., the world has continued to see above-average temperatures overall, with 2013 expected to wind up among the top 10 warmest on record. The last month to have global average surface temperatures below the 20th century average occurred in February of 1985.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Yep. What will they report for 2013 in total on the graph you posted earlier?
“Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
It also finally resolves the Met Offices prediction made a few years ago that half of the five years after 2009 would be record breakers. Although only 2010 was according to HadCrut4, it was not statistically significant.
They can trying to tell people who are freezing that it's actually warm, but it doesn't make it true. The last several years combined have actually been a straight line. Even the GWPF is accepting this as a fact.
I thought it was "global" warming. If our doom is sealed, isn't yours?
Depends on where and how you live, doesn't it? I live at the foot of the Rockies; rising sea levels wouldn't bother me directly. Shifting of the jet stream might do so more.
So just how close to the coast is Palo Alto anyway?
It is snowing where I am, today, so that must mean global warming is officially over.
Sez you! A couple of days ago it was -25C. Tomorrow, it looks to be around -2. At this rate, the glaciers should be gone around Sunday and by Christmas, well, I'm thinking about red hot pipes surrounded by pools of molten street.
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 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.
