The consensus from the Cook paper is that "humans are causing global warming." There is no quanitification in that statement. A recreation of the Cook study by David Legates shows: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Global warming is real Human contribution to global warming is real. No scientist of politician disagrees with these facts. What alot of scientists do disagree with is how much % do humans attribute to global warming You see, while the artic is loosing ice, the antartic is gaining ice. This being so, one can make a strong argument that the current climate change is in fact natural. So how much % of global warming is attributed to human activity? Is it a % that doesn't matter much? Like 0.00000001% Or does it have a substantial effects. Enough that matter? I'm sure everyone on this forum knows by now the whistleblower that came forth revealing that data was manipulated to make it look like oceanic temperatures are drastically warming. The same data that was used to convince so many countries to join the Paris climate agreement Unfortunately it looks like the alternative energy companies are now playing the same game that oil companies play. So they resort to information manipulation and lobbying
You're forgetting the possibility that there are issues specific to each pole. For example, the south polar region has a wind that circles earth at a high southern latitude, preventing the mixing of air at the pole with the rest of earth as would otherwise occur. More importantly, the polar regions are included in the calculation of the mean temperature of earth - you are suggesting averaging of the poles that has already been done. The mean temperature of earth is reported to be rising, with essentially zero disagreement - even by those denying human contribution. In fact, deniers such as Dr. Curry call for preparing for the affects we should expect from a warming earth - even though she sees the human contribution as less than the vast majority of climatologists.
These charts show divides between human and natural factors: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing# Alternative energy companies have essentially zero dollars compared to the massive petrochemical industry. The idea that they could "manipulate" anything in a way comparable to the known petrochemical manipulation is simply laughable. Obviously, any tampering should be treated harshly.
Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming? November 19, 2015 NASA recently released a study suggesting that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining more ice than it is losing — a finding that, at first blush, seems to contradict the idea of global warming. So, how can Antarctica be gaining ice mass in a warming world where ice sheets are collapsing and the melting is predicted to increase sea levels across the globe? It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the NASA study, which was published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology, does not disprove global warming. Rather, the researchers found that snow accumulation is adding more ice to East Antarctica (the huge chunk of the continent to the east of the Transantarctic Mountains) and the interior region of West Antarctica than is being lost as glaciers across Antarctica thin out. More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming; more precipitation happens when there is more moisture in the air, and more moisture in the air is a product of higher temperatures, said Elizabeth Thomas, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey. http://www.livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html
[video=youtube_share;Kp6_sDiup6U]http://youtu.be/Kp6_sDiup6U[/video] Antarctica is melting quickly. Temperature changes are more extreme at the poles.
It's not. There has been a Global warming pause. A period without global warming. Scientists manipulated the data from 2015 study to make it look like the world is warming again. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html The fact that there is has been a "global warming pause" leads one to believe that global warming is natural. Cutting our reliance on coal or oil will likely change nothing and places in the artic like the permafrost in the Russian tundra will continue to melt releasing much more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans could hope to achieve. As well as tons of methane which is a green house gas 30 times more potent.
NASA - Ice sheet gain greater than loss https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...s-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
That pdf file is NOT a scientific studdy.It lacks virtually all aspects of one EPA is highly politicized so it's not a reliable source
Except that there has been a Global warming pause and scientists in 2015 manipulated the data to make it appear as if that pause ended. All global oceans have to travel through the antartic via current. As you can see that its the largest temprature region it goes through. Since the current spends more time in the antartic then anywhere else (especially the artic), the cooling effects will be that much greater More ice in the antartic = colder waters Less ice in the artic = warmer waters Those two cancel. This explains the glabal warming pause, doesn't it? And why there has been a record cold
Also. Water effects the air temprature as well. And as you know, it's a much better conductor than air
You are wrong. There are no temperature stations in the Arctic Ocean so the temperature is extrapolated from a few land stations up to 1200km. Two of the temperature products extrapolate, two don't include the Arctic. All use the same raw data. Calling Curry a denier shows how little you know about any of this.
That may have been true a while back, but not today. Tons of environmental regulations under 8 years of Obama and his push for solar panels changed that While the oil companies may still be the big guys in this(as far as funds are concerned), the loud radical left overpowered them politically under obama. Also. They receive much more funding
Yes. It is a statement of findings, including methodology. No, the fact that the EPA and NOAA are saying the same thing is an indication that the EPA is taking their information from science. I presented the two documents to demonstrate that the EPA is NOT having its understanding of climatology perverted by politics.
Question. IF AGW is going to be a great future problem, and given the fight for carbon taxes, which can be redistributed to the banking cabal and MNCs, and the elites that own them isn't going anywhere....WHY is there not a world wide concerted effort to address co2 levels by adding flora and putting a halt to rainforest deforestation? It seems the only way we want to address it enriches a few by having hands shoved deeper into our pockets, to get the last of our spare change. NO ONE speaks to the flora issue. When as freeman dyson said would have already been done IF the powers that be, and the hysterical LEFT were serious about addressing co2 levels. Could it be that there just isn't MONEY to be made by someone unless you tax carbon? I will believe this is not a scheme when our leaders begin with a change in land management, world wide, and we demand and get a cessation of rain forest deforestation. For surely you know that co2 loving flora plays an important role in co2 levels. And if you deforest co2 rises. How much has deforestation over the last 100 years affected co2 levels? We might know if some grants were used to study other factors in co2 levels. I would like to see the hysterical on the left lead by example. Sell your cars, get rid of your modern conveniences, heat, AC, grow your own food, with the work being done without any energy but your own physical energy, and get off of fossil fuels completely. Choose volunteer poverty. And send most of you paycheck to the elites who want your carbon taxes, so they will not bother you in trying to get your money by schemes. Or you can do like people like al gore does, and leave the austere lives up to the non rich. . Afterall the non elites are used to low living standards, and could handle it better than the Silver Spoon Moon Bats. When gov't starts addressing the expansion of flora, which will grow really well with higher co2 levels, only then will I take them and you, seriously. Of course I am not saying co2 levels are not higher, and that fossil fuels are to blame as well as not maxing out flora and stopping deforestation, I doubt if the predictions are accurate. But a warming earth, a warmer earth will not destroy life, for we have been warmer, and life flourished. Flora and fauna.
Interesting site! I found it difficult to use the site to learn science, though, as the primary intent seems to be to identify and promote these scientists - a fine objective, of course. I've looked at: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor2.html Remember that the cold water tends to be deep while the warmer water is nearer the surface. So, that subdues the affect of cold portions of the cycle on earth's surface temperatures. The circumpolar current is driven by the wind that circles the south polar region. The strength of that wind and thus the current slows mixing. The result is that the south pole can maintain far more ice than can the north pole, where no such feature exists to prevent mixing. ... or so is my understanding.
There are temperature measurements being taken across the arctic region. You should cite something to support your issue. I call Curry a denier because she is on the minimal end of the spectrum of opinion on how much human activity affects earth's temperature.
Lol - no. The world wide field of climatology is not a conspiracy perpetrated by some "loud radical left" in the USA. You need to get a grip. The USA is doing very little. And, the suggestion that there is ANY kind of funding comparable to that of the fossil fuel industry is just plain silly. Plus, there is nothing comparable to the efforts of Exxon to carry out assault on the truth of US science in the name of corporate profits.
What pause? No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say In an interview on Monday with E&E News, Dr. Bates appeared to distance himself from some of what he wrote in the blog post, and from the way his criticisms were portrayed in the Mail on Sunday article. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html?_r=1
There are no temperature readings taken across the Arctic for the land/ocean dataset, the Arctic temperatures are extrapolated. You should do some reading before you make erroneous claims. Curry thinks all the science of climate science should have a say and be discussed and that the IPCC puts little effort into communicating uncertainty so for the true believers, she is a denier. Of course what would a highly credentialed atmospheric scientist know about climate.
The MET office and the satellite datasets all show a pause, the only one that doesn't is the one that incorporated the Karl et. al. pause buster paper where buoys, designed for science, were adjusted up to match the problematic ship engine intake temperatures and ship bucket readings.
The one that's been going on more than 18 years A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that Americas National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The report claimed that the pause or slowdown in global warming in the period since 1998 revealed by UN scientists in 2013 never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the worlds media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers. But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data. - NOAAs 2015 Pausebuster paper was based on two new temperature sets of data one containing measurements of temperatures at the planets surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas. Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend. The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings unstable. The paper relied on a preliminary, alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified. - Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored. The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, the document said the widely reported pause or slowdown was a myth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html]
Yeah that is an interesting addition to the data that wasn't known at the time VICE made that documentary. Thanks for sharing.
Their fraudulent "scientific data" sure did fuel global policy changes. Lol Your whole "science isn't political" argument goes against current really
