Man Made Global Warming 101:
climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Not true.
"It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
Kat writes:
And 39 of the 17,000 are actually real climatologists, with degrees and expertise in the field. Which is actually pretty impressive, given the evidence for anthropogenic warming. Something like 0.02 percent of all climatologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
You mean like those without documentation and statistical controls? No doubt.
Incidentally, here's the website for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
http://www.oism.org/
Apparently, they have no climatologists, either. But they would like your urine so they can cure cancer.
Check 'em out. It appears that the director, Art Robertson, has a rather colorful history for a biochemist. He was given the boot from the Linus Pauling Institute (where he was at one time the president) for some unusual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson
And 39 of the 17,000 are actually real climatologists, with degrees and expertise in the field. Which is actually pretty impressive, given the evidence for anthropogenic warming. Something like 0.02 percent of all climatologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
You mean like those without documentation and statistical controls? No doubt.
Incidentally, here's the website for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
http://www.oism.org/
Apparently, they have no climatologists, either. But they would like your urine so they can cure cancer.
Check 'em out. It appears that the director, Art Robertson, has a rather colorful history for a biochemist. He was given the boot from the Linus Pauling Institute (where he was at one time the president) for some unusual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson
Then you are wrong. Simple as that.
Rexlunae,
You're an atheist.
Since 99.99% of theologians are in agreement that God exists, why are you a denier?
But, but, but, Kat don't you understand?
Is there any depth to which your intellectual dishonesty will not take you? Global Warming does not predict that it will always be warmer everywhere, and you know it.
Tet?
Ah, so you can read. That clears up one question, at least.
I'm not sure I buy your statistic, but even if I did, their discipline is not a science, and it isn't one that can easily assert facts.
zippy2006
New member
What is a science?
197 international scientific organizations
and
their members beg
to differ!
They have Phd's in the study of God.
If that high of a percentage of them agree there is a God, why are you a denier?
PhilipJames
New member
I'll take that as a no u didn't read the report. I posted the link not feeling it necessary to post pages of data here when it was easily accessed by the link.
look again at the graph YOU posted. at what point in increased solar activity did temps start to rise significantly? (around 1930 on your graph) Is the latest lvl of activity on your graph above or below that point?
Still above but trending downward... to put it in focus...
if you put a pot of water on the stove and turn up the heat you may be able to bring the water to a boil... u can then turn down the amount of heat being applied and yet keep the water at a boil... if you turn down the heat far enough it will eventually stop boiling....
here is the data from the last website I directed you too:
Table 1: Dates and values for sunspot cycle maxima.
Cycle
Waldmeier/ McKinnon
13-month Mean Maximum
Monthly Mean Maximum
Monthly Group Maximum
Date Value Date Value Date Value Date Value
1 1761.5 86.5 1761/06 86.5 1761/05 107.2 1761/05 109.4
2 1769.7 115.8 1769/09 115.8 1769/10 158.2 1771/05 162.5
3 1778.4 158.5 1778/05 158.5 1778/05 238.9 1778/01 144.0
4 1788.1 141.2 1788/02 141.2 1787/12 174.0 1787/12 169.0
5 1805.2 49.2 1805/02 49.2 1804/10 62.3 1805/11 67.0
6 1816.4 48.7 1816/05 48.7 1817/03 96.2 1817/03 57.0
7 1829.9 71.7 1829/11 71.5 1830/04 106.3 1830/04 101.5
8 1837.2 146.9 1837/03 146.9 1836/12 206.2 1837/01 160.7
9 1848.1 131.6 1848/02 131.9 1847/10 180.4 1849/01 130.9
10 1860.1 97.9 1860/02 98.0 1860/07 116.7 1860/07 103.4
11 1870.6 140.5 1870/08 140.3 1870/05 176.0 1870/05 122.3
12 1883.9 74.6 1883/12 74.6 1882/04 95.8 1884/01 86.0
13 1894.1 87.9 1894/01 87.9 1893/08 129.2 1893/08 126.7
14 1907.0? 64.2 1906/02 64.2 1907/02 108.2 1906/07 111.6
15 1917.6 105.4 1917/08 105.4 1917/08 154.5 1917/08 157.0
16 1928.4 78.1 1928/04 78.1 1929/12 108.0 1929/12 121.8
17 1937.4 119.2 1937/04 119.2 1938/07 165.3 1937/02 154.5
18 1947.5 151.8 1947/05 151.8 1947/05 201.3 1947/07 149.3
19 1957.9 201.3 1958/03 201.3 1957/10 253.8 1957/10 222.2
20 1968.9 110.6 1968/11 110.6 1969/03 135.8 1968/05 132.3
21 1979.9 164.5 1979/12 164.5 1979/09 188.4 1979/01 179.4
22 1989/07 158.5 1990/08 200.3 1990/08 195.9
23 2000/04 120.7 2000/07 169.1 2000/07 153.9
as you can see, cycles 16-23 are significantly higher than cycles 5-15
here's a quote from that site: (bolding by me)
"Over the last 24 cycles the average amplitude (in terms of the 13-month-smoothed monthly averages of the daily sunspot number) was about 114. Over the last 400 years the cycle amplitudes have varied widely – from basically zero through the Maunder Minimum to the two small cycles of the Dalton Minimum at the start of the 19th century (amplitudes of 49.2 and 48.7) to the recent string of large cycles (amplitudes of 151.8, 201.3, 110.6, 164.5, 158.5, and 120.8).
if the sunspot activity continues its downward trend another 50 years will see everyone wishing we could alleviate the cold by putting more co2 in the atmosphere
seriously though, were it to continue to the 'Maunder minimum' we would be talking again about a possible new ice age approaching.
rather it has an almost immediate impact as 'weather' especially at the interior of continental land masses... (did I mention the coldest prairie winter in 100 years?).. it would take a sustained decrease in solar activity to make an impact on overall climate just as the sustained increase in activity HAS made an impact over the last 80-90 years.
it has not been a 50 year decline as the table above shows.. more like 20 but lvls are just now reaching that of about 1930 when the current significant warming trend began.. should activity continue to decline it WILL lead to lower global temperatures
ahh.. and if the theory I have set out here is correct... if the next 2 cycles do remain weak, you will see a decline in global average temp, thus affecting climate.
if you didn't even look at it, how do you know the record's not right?
Again, its more like 20 and even now is just approaching the levels of the 1930's... should the decline continue, yes a couple more decades will make it obvious...
.
not at all... after 80-90 years of high solar activity it is not surprising that coastal areas would show above average temperatures even while interiors of continental land masses were extremely cold due to lower solar activity. as you correctly pointed out earlier there is much stored energy in the oceans...
Actually I don't and I apologize, I will no longer reference the chicken little story.
I did so to bring awareness to the fact that there are many that are using the man made global warming 'theory' to scare people into following their agenda for their own purposes.. and just like the fox in chicken little... those purposes are not in our best interests.
PJ
Sounds good to me. These you prefer are probably in the business of making global warming an issue?
That wasn't my point.
My point was that the 97% is a myth.
Everything about man made global warming is based on lies and/or myths.
May yes, maybe no, who knows, you?
Also this group Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812, seem more reliable than Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39), hot-tub scientists, who probably could not get though the rigors of mathematics and physics.
What about the study on PDF?
What about the study on PDF?
zippy2006
New member
But a theologian believes in God by definition. If a theologian loses their belief in God they will leave the field entirely or shift to something like religious studies. If a climatologist loses their belief in global warming, they remain a climatologist. :idunno:
The relevant demographic for an informed survey of the existence of God is not theologians, but rather those who have studied the questions and arguments relating to the existence of God, some of whom will be theologians.
Are you sure about that?
Do you know of any climatologists who work in the private sector?
hippie mythology :cloud9:
zippy2006
New member
So you think there is a bias in climatology based on current sources of funding?
If that is true then it would be proper to argue directly for that bias--a bias which is not inherent to climatology across history and culture. Even if it is true, it is a different relationship than that between theologians and belief in God. This is because theologians across history and culture believe in God, and thus it is not simply due to our current cultural context.
(Regarding my post to rex, I think Tet's analogical argument was invalid but not because theology is not a science. Querying climatologists about climate is inherently more fruitful an activity than querying theologians about the existence of God.)
That doesn't control what is true. I've seen their arguments, and I don't find them persuasive. Whereas, as many posts from you and your ilk in this thread demonstrate in abundance, there is a blistering ignorance of global warming which is being proffered as some kind of substantive refutation, which of course, it isn't.
This is an insincere standard, and you know it. Do you listen to Muslim theologians? Do you treat them as authoritative?