GLOBAL WARMING - "Snowfalls are a thing of the past" (page 9)

Miss J

what do you think about the idea that global warming is a con and part of a siniste depopulation plan ? i find it scary xx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR4oIZ0k2d0

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

There is little doubt that climate change will cause massive population displacements in the countries least well equipped to cope with it.

bohm

Welcome, Miss J!

i believe Exxon is the largest company in the world. Oil, gas, coal and related industries represent huge monetary assets and they are often heavily entangled with local government, see saudi arabia, russia, etc.

As such they have very strong international bargaining power.

Secondly politicians in less corrupt countries are short-sighted beasts, they care about getting reelected, not pissing off 20% (its a low estimate) of the voters who do not understand or does not accept the research on climate science.

So what is more likely? A secret conspiracy, a bunch of strong companies who try to protect their interests and are not stopped by a bunch of short-sighted politicians who are more interested in issues that will immediately piss off a large segment of the voters?

I dont really blame people - a lot of the "solutions" to global warming has been nothing more than a really stupid way to give farmers money for wasting even more oil, see the whole bio-ethanol from crops fiasco.

NeckBeard

The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance, with the vast majority of that imbalance being absorbed by the deep ocean.

BurnTheShips

Of the 10,257 earth scientists invited to respond, 30.7% (3,146) replied.

This sounds too self selecting (to me) to be a valid survey. In the current environment, it might not be considered a good idea to identify oneself as not subscribing to the hypothesis. It's like being an atheist at a Baptist convention.

BTS

BurnTheShips

GLOBAL WARMING - "Snowfalls are a thing of the past"

We were also told, years back, that hurricane activity would increase with AGW. We would be seeing more storms, and worse storms, in the years ahead.

However, 2010 is over, after a very quiet 2009:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

2010 is in the books: Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains lowest in at least three decades, and expected to decrease even further...

BTS

BurnTheShips

Doran (2009) presents evidence for 97.4% that accept the mainstream view.

This recent article is very critical of the 97.4% figure touted by Doran, citing flaws.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:

BTS

besty

This recent article is very critical of the 97.4% figure touted by Doran, citing flaws.

The authors of the recent critical article can present their own survey for demolition or validation by the scientific method, although I accept that surveys of this type are open to criticism of self-selection. By far more egregious an example of flawed 'science by petition' is the so called Oregon Petition purporting to have 30,000 scientists disagreeing with the consensus. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

Let me put the climate change consensus another way:

No scientific body or national science academy holds a dissenting opinion. The scientific debate about climate change has largely moved on to what to do about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

For the most complete view of the science of climate change the IPCC is authoritative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

besty

OTWO:

The earth goes through these stages.

If you accept that climate responds to the dominant forcing and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you need to explain why temperature is rising without the activity of man being the main driver.

Or what stages are you referring to? Presumably ones that ignore CO2?

darthfader

Is it reasonable to ask: Is there any financial or other "compensation" that would cause very large percentages of climatologists to toss their hat into the Global Warming pool? Are any of these groups dependent of funding derrived from the concerns on Global Warming? If so, is it enough to bias individuals?

Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here... but I gotta ask.

Thanks

GLOBAL WARMING - "Snowfalls are a thing of the past"

2010 is in the books: Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains lowest in at least three decades, and expected to decrease even further...

Share this