looking at the yearly stats, it's apparent that something happened in 1997/98 which caused the increase %ge to drop off a cliff and remain low.. take a look:.
yearpeak pubsincreaseincrease %1981-822,477,608115,7124.8991982-832,652,323174,7157.0521983-842,842,531190,2087.1711984-853,024,131181,6006.3891985-863,229,022204,8916.7751986-873,395,612166,5905.1591987-883,592,654197,0425.8031988-893,787,188194,5345.4151989-904,017,213230,0256.0741990-914,278,820261,6076.5121991-924,472,787193,9674.5331992-934,709,889237,1025.3011993-944,914,094204,2054.3361994-955,199,895285,8015.8161995-965,413,769213,8744.1131996-975,599,931186,1623.4391997-985,888,650288,7195.1561998-995,912,49223,8420.4051999-006,035,564123,0722.0822000-016,117,66682,1021.3602001-026,304,645186,9793.0562002-036,429,351124,7061.9782003-046,513,13283,7811.3032004-056,613,829100,6971.5462005-066,741,444127,6151.9302006-076,957,854216,4103.2102007-087,124,443166,5892.3942008-097,313,173188,7302.6492009-107,508,050194,8772.6652010-117,659,019150,9692.0112011-127,782,346123,3271.610anyone know why this was?.
splash.
they will settle at 1% nominal growth.
huge fadeouts in the west and normal growth in southern hemisphere poor countries.
end result = blue collar, old people, poor immigrants in the west and fighting for the evangelical pie in africa, latin america
thats why they are selling up and downsizing - not the signs of health, but long-haul decline
death of a religion.
i'm quite new to this site, & have realised some members have a union jack symbol under their avatar.
i don't.. could we have a "show of hands" from any uk members?
i've already found several by reading older posts..
bttt
they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..
I love to see people who clearly only ever meet people like themselves using the Internet to discover new ideas.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
thanks for clarifying that "we can't do anything about it" is substantially different from "a destiny we can't alter"
that just leaves your alternative consensus number and your thoughts on Petit's position on climate science?
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
As far as I can tell, you havn't substantiated the claim that there is a 97% AGW consensus amongst climate scientists
I already did - Page 4 of this thread.
Although it is valid to crtiticize methodology, it is also possible to attempt to replicate results. If you have an alternative peer-reviewed paper which shows climate scientists are not in near-unanimous consensus then please share with the group. (Of course the 3% deniers also serve to destroy the conspiracy myth and provide evidence of the scientific method being alive and well - it just so happens they are almost certainly wrong)
Aside from Doran/Zimmerman finding that 75/77 climate scientists attribute rising temps to human activity there are several other similar studies with similar outcomes analysed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
1 - A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
2 - A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
I hope that answers your question. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.
Now your facts or evidence showing an alternative number for the position of climate scientists please.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@tt2c
Projecting from data availiable, the reality is there will eventually be another ice age, whether any human exists on this planet or not. For this reason, taking an extremist or religiously apocolyptical position over this issue doesn't make much sense, and I don't understand how folks can argue that altering our activities is going to somehow change this destiny
In summary - climate has always changed, we can't do anything about it and an Ice Age is coming so why bother.
What tt2c doesn't mention along with the graph he posted is the thoughts of the author of the study. Dr Jean Robert Petit is possibly the foremost expert on ice cores and this study is one of the most cited geo-sciences paper of all time. He says:
A salient correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature suggested from the 150-kyrs record was fully confirmed for the four climatic cycles with an almost perfect covariance between temperature and CO2.
All climatic records cited above contain periodicity at orbital frequencies (typically, 100, 40 and 20 kyrs), conforming with the marine records, as well as the astronomical theory of climate (Milankovich theory).
Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases [carbon dioxide and methane] seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
With industrial development and anthropologic activity, massive burning of fossil carbon as well as intensification of agriculture released exponential amounts of CO2 and CH4 over the last 150 years. Present atmospheric composition well surpasses all maximum concentrations from the ice records over the last 420 kyrs (30% more CO2, 300% more CH4).
http://in-cites.com/papers/Jean-RobertPetit.html
I think it is safe to say he is one of the 97% consensus of climate scientists which tt2c denies exist.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@tt2c
I havn't seen ice core samples mentioned on here yet
Yep - change the subject without answering my question on the point you just raised.
Classy.
Let me remind you:
Where is the peer-reviewed paper showing a different figure for climate change consensus? Link please.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
@SBF
You mentioned disconfirmatory evidence and referred to a Der Spiegel article purporting to show that global temperatures had not risen in accordance with IPCC predictions.
What is the other side of the story? Lets look at IPCC AR5 to see what they say about their own predictions.
IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,
"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."
I'd like your thoughts on the Guardian article, particularly as it relates to the errors in the Der Spiegel article you cited.
.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.
people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.
You didn't mention that 66.4% of those 12,000 papers considered in the Cook study made no assertion that warming is AGW caused.
Where is the peer-reviewed paper showing a different figure for climate change consensus? Link please.
Some things are taken as a fact and don't need endless repeating.
100% of recent papers didn't mention the fact that gravity makes things fall down and the fact that the sun is in the middle of the solar sysytem.
I encourage anyone interested in the methodology of the Cook 2011 paper on the 97% consensus to read it for themselves - don't rely on me or anyone else to predigest the facts for you. (Be wary when no other contradictory evidence is presented)
i noticed a few times that the active topics list seemed a little messed up.
i'll take a look at it..
asked and answered
awesome tech support you enjoy from the forum admins simon
