Author: sansukong

Climate Change Is Interplanetary !!!   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-6 21:42:26 |Display all floors
Most Important Pie Chart You'll See Today: 13,950 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Articles on Earth's Climate

24 reject global warming., 13926 support the theory of AGW.

Michael Graham Richard
Science / Climate Change
November 26, 2012
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-6 21:47:29 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2012-12-6 21:45
Yes, I have noticed too.

But it is unlikely that he attends any of these conferences because he i ...

Not the rat

The rat is too dumb

The people who fed the rat.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-7 00:54:38 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2012-12-6 20:07
Another telltale hint that Sans Souci is desperate to get his paid PR message across:

All his "cont ...

For a spineless character like you, who is a born liar, a boneless slime, a moral bankrupt, a snake-oil salesman and a hypocrite, do you still have the cheek to claim to stand on high moral ground? Why, do you feed good calling Chinese women slugs? Do you feel morally right, like going about looking to buy little Chinese children for perverted men? Do you feel honoured by calling the Chinese athletes thieves at the London Olympics? Why, waiting to accomplish your assigned agenda for your master/s in China in order to collect your dues?
FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-7 01:17:10 |Display all floors
sansukong Post time: 2012-12-7 00:54
For a spineless character like you, who is a born liar, a boneless slime, a moral bankrupt, a snak ...

Rat


Why immoral no moral bigger rats so attractive to you?
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-7 01:25:19 |Display all floors
Most Important Pie Chart You'll See Today: 13,950 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Articles on Earth's Climate

Michael Graham Richard
Science / Climate Change
November 26, 2012

© James Lawrence Powell (with permission)

Is There Still a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming?

Back in 2005 (which is a loooong time ago in Internet time), Naomi Oreskes published a famous paper in Science titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". It's a meta-study that looked at 928 scientific papers between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that, despite what the media often implied, there was a very strong consensus among scientists about climate change, with none of the papers disagreeing with consensus position.
Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). (You can see his methodology here.)

What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.

The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.

"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.

Remember this the next time the media tries to present things as if scientists are split on the issue.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-7 07:43:00 |Display all floors

RE: Climate Change Is Interplanetary !!!

« Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Impact Documented | Main | NOAA’s Bizarro World of Global Temperature Adjustments – Its Political Agenda Mocks Empirical Science »

Global Cooling Since 1997 - The IPCC Global Warming Prediction Due To CO2 Emissions Was Wrong, SpectacularlyThe IPCC predicted that global warming would result from increased atmospheric CO2 levels - however, since the beginning of the 1997 Super El Nino, global cooling has been the result

(click on image to enlarge)

The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled - a total of 184 months. This cooling trend took place during a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.

This slight cooling trend is opposite of what the IPCC (and NASA's James Hansen) predicted for global temperatures.

The IPCC prediction of rapid global warming is based on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions would increase atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels; the increase of greenhouse gases would allow more radiated heat to be retained; the retained heat would warm the atmosphere; and, the atmosphere would then warm the world's oceans and land surfaces. Such predicted warming would set in motion a "runaway tipping point" that would produce catastrophic climate disasters and a doomsday for civilization.

Instead, as the adjacent chart indicates, the lower atmosphere since 1997 (per the RSS satellite measurements) has actually been exhibiting a cooling trend, versus the the obvious warming trend for the January 1980 to April 1997 period (red curve on chart).

Like the RSS dataset, the HadCRUT global temperatures also exhibit almost the same warming/cooling dichotomy. What is very apparent in both datasets is that the '97-98 Super El Niñoshifted temperatures up to a new level, which then global temperatures resumed their normal variation around. Subsequent to this temperature range shift, growing CO2 emissions have not caused the long predicted "global warming."

Conclusions:

#1. Satellite measurements reveal both a modest global warming and very slight global cooling period since 1980.

#2. Levels of atmospheric CO2 appear to have no consistent influence on global temperatures since 1980.

#3. Global warming is not "irrefutable," "unequivocal," "rapidly increasing," "accelerating," "incontrovertible," "indisputable," "unquestionable" nor "unprecedented." It's quite the opposite of all these qualifiers.

#4. Any IPCC scientist, climate researcher, academic, government bureaucrat, journalist and pundit who states and/or implies that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth,' is, quite honestly, a serious liar. The empirical evidence is the scientific truth, not a person's blatant verbal misrepresentation.

#5. Politicians and celebrities who state and/or imply that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth' is at best, stuck-on-stupid. Unfortunately, that seems to be the dominating characteristic of individuals involved in the political, sports and entertainment worlds. (Although, with politicians it may not be the case of being stupid, instead it may be more of a case of being criminally corrupt in order to enrich himself via "green" projects - think Solyndra.)

#6. As the satellite data show, the hot summer in the U.S. was not a result of global warming (as suggested by many covered by points #5 and #6) since global atmospheric temperatures during May, June and July were not extreme nor unusual.

Note: Chart source of satellite data, CO2 data.



September 16, 2012 at 02:17 PM |




FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-12-7 14:23:56 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Revolutionar at 2012-12-7 08:52

sansukong Post time: 2012-12-7 07:10
« Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Impact Docum ...

Heartless Institute analysis......

What they call?

You can Choose and pick statistics and mislead the other rats
But that is not science.

For it to be science, you have to get it accepted by enough experts in well respected journals.

There are no climate scientists here......but this I know......

Thousands of peer reviewed papers, 99.99% confirms the theory of AGW.
Climate is the underlying long term factors, not the short term variations which are mainly noise.

Climate science is not a one minute science . It is an accumulation of knowledge over a long time.

The next time we have a EL Niño event, It will be record high again , then where to hide?

90% of the extra energy trapped by global warming went into the ocean., we already have all the heating.
The sun is also at some cyclical lows in outputs the last decade or so.


So, what happens in next solar output highs and an El Niño event?

And the last 10 years are indeed the hottest that we have records of.....the long term charts pointing up........

Natural variations cannot account for the observations in long term charts.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.