Slashdot Mirror

I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.

The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.

We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reason the world's leading climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change

Also Germany tried what you did and they have failed. Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and their electricity is 10x dirty then their neighbor France. Scroll to the third graph comparing Germany and France. You will notice that Germany emits 560 grams of CO2 per kWh and France emits 58 grams of CO2 per kWh. That is almost 10x.

Because the effect of cosmic rays on 14C production in the atmosphere has been directly measured, and while there is a measurable shortfall there, the production from lightning can't amount to very much or the amount being produced from cosmic rays would be far off the observed atmospheric concentration. There's also a good historical record of 14C concentration in the atmosphere thanks to tree rings, glacial ice cores, and corals going back thousands of years. Example. Other than the mess made by 14C production since ~1945 thanks to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, those concentrations jive with what would be expected primarily from the cosmic ray production. If lightning contributes too, it would have to be a relatively small proportion or the equilibrium achieved between 14C production and decay would be at a much higher concentration.

It's also worth noting that the gamma-ray production from lightning, which is associated with the process producing 14C, is only observed for the most extreme lightning events, detected at rates of around 50 per day world-wide versus the millions of individual lightning strikes that presumably aren't strong enough.

Ok. I'm a mathematician, so I think I have some degree of expertise relevant to comment when someone says that they have a mathematical proof of something. You cannot give a mathematical proof of something in the physical world.

You are of course correct. I think they are using the wrong words "mathematical proof" when the accurate term is "extensive modelling."

But that's the world we live in, where Mathematical proof sounds so smart and right, and extensive modelling probably sounds like women and men walking around on catwalks to show off clothing.

The abstract :http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/25/1618854114

The full text http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

A really quick perusal of the full paper doesn't show any particular issues, it is simply a model run to some conclusion. As always, some assumptions have to be made. As such, there is nothing outlandish or red flagging about it.

I think the tl;dr version of all this is don't put a lot of stock in articles that try to bridge popular culture and science - read the actual papers.

Producing energy since September 1969,

Nuclear plants are magical. Hell, Fukushima's been closed since 2011 and it's still producing energy in the form of radiation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

Although it seems kind of silly, you never know what you might get when you take a good look at nature. Nature is a cruel thing and it tends to favor more efficient solutions to survival. For as smart as humans can be, sometimes looking at the results of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution can help to guide us in the right direction.

Here is a link to the actual journal article, rather than these popularizations. Are we geeks or not?

The paper does not discuss the process of injecting 5 teragrams (5 million tonnes) of SO2 into the stratosphere each year but since airliners fly in the lower stratosphere, and a 747-400 can carry 100+ tonnes as payload 50,000 flights a year could do this using planes that were flying SO2 tanks. If one plane could do 10 flights a day then a fleet of only 15 planes could handle the mission.

Don't tell the chemtrail people about this.

Although fighting pollution with more pollution is hardly an optimal approach, it is one weapon that is perhaps available. Since periodic injections of SO2 occur naturally (e.g. Pinatubo) we do have data about the lifetime of these aerosols. It appears that scavenging will prevent long-term effects if it is decided that this is not something we want to keep doing.

Give a separate country to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and save yourself from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10...

I have to consider the possibility of both positive and negative discrimination relating to female %s in STEM. Last I read though, women were the beneficiaries of hiring bias, and not penalized by it.

Nope, I saw that. I also saw that people reanalyzed the data and found that the analysis was faulty. Here is another explanation of the topic.

Nope, I saw that. I also saw that people reanalyzed the data and found that the analysis was faulty. Here is another explanation of the topic.

Nope, I saw that. I also saw that people reanalyzed the data and found that the analysis was faulty. Here is another explanation of the topic.

Of course you also happen to be dead wrong in your argument above, and your reasoning does seem to show signs of a lack of critical thought associated with lots of handfeeding and claims of authority without any evidence.

My argument is that active learning is superior. There is research to support my position. The medical school in vermont has read some of the same research. Here is one source from the national academy of science that I got from a my bibtex file. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

How about I mention that the largest problem in universities is the lack of entry filtering, by which I mean 80% of the people there should not be, and that that detracts hugely from the education of the 20% who should be? And that those 20% are the dedicated intellectuals who are willing to forgo other things in their lives and dedicate themselves to academic research?

Your answer to that should clear up the question.

Those are technically not questions. I am not convinced everyone who is in college is ready for it. I think we push college on students when other careers can be better (both in job satisfaction and money made). There is also a lot of entry filtering in college--it is called the admission process. This can be improved.

So, you are saying the decommissioning process is going well?

No, I'm saying you attempt to falsify reality in pursuit of your idealogy.

I'm saying TEPCO are clearly not capable, willfully and criminally negligent. I'm saying the sooner this is resolved with an international effort the lower the overall impact will be.

They have no sign of uncontrolled release of radiation, and the exploratory robots are working well. I didn't look at all the photos in detail, is there a North Korean spy that was caught in one of the frames or something?

Everytime you tout your zealotry more of the truth you seek to conceal emerges. Everytime you boast of your ignorance, more fact emerges for everyone else to see. Everytime you fail to acknowledge the situation, more consequences are revealed. Over eight hundred thousand tons of highly radio active water in uncontrolled releases *so far*.

I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to take away from this.

It's clear you see this as a political issue and not a radiological issue that will affect the genome of every species on the planet for the forseeable future. It's clear you are not stupid but willfully ignorant and actively deny fact placed before you. Your comments are so dogmatically skeptical the only logical conclusion to draw is that you are either a paid troll with an adgenda or a useful idiot prepared to pathologize your own perception of reality in pursuit of your idealogy.

Take away that your trolling is so obviously professional it's unlikeley I'm the only one who can see through the bullshit of your agenda.

I am ignorant because I am an idealogue. I am an idealogue because I am ignorant.

You are an enemy of freedom because you are an enemy of truth. You are an enemy of truth because you are an enemy of freedom.

I meant to point that out to you last time we conversed however something more important came up. I appreciate you delivering an opportunity to excoriate you and once again be entertained by your display of mental gymnastics around the facts.

You and Hansen, if he really said what you claim, that nuclear power is the only way out of the current situation, are wrong. You know that, everyone knows that.

It is not just us there are a lot of people who believe in nuclear power. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement. If you scroll down you will see a lot of prominent names on that list. In fact the national academy of science does not think so either. They critiqued the feasibility of a 100% Wind Water and Solar solution. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full.pdf The issue, as I stated at the top of this thread, is storage. We do not have a means to store weeks worth of electricity.

E.g. in germany you can not build them at all. So ... you are 100% contradicted.

How are we contradicted? Germany is burning more coal then ever. There are times of the year where renewables produce 0 electricity forcing them to burn coal. If they kept their nuclear fleet running they would be cleaner today.

Everyone knows that nuckear power is super expensive

4th generation reactors can be factory built which will make them cheaper. It is called the economic of scales. It is why solar panels and microprocessors get better and cheaper.

no one wants it in his back yard.

I do, but I do not believe all of the bs lies about nuclear power. In fact a recent analysis says the children who grew up near nuclear power plants are healthier because they are exposed to less pollution. I know it is hard to admit you are wrong for decades, but if we are going to move forward as species you are going to have to.

What misinformation? Resistance will reduce the amount of energy sent. You will lose a lot electricity thru resistance. See ohms law. Maybe I should have used the word practical instead of possible. Second the east coast, west coast, and texas use different grids. Forcing all three to become a single grid is not practical. Third the national academy of science has debunked the feasibility of a 100% wind water and solar system. Fourth the worst scenario is wide spread blackouts during winter because we are relying on an intermittent power source.

I used the word most, and not all. Also just a couple of weeks ago the national academy of science debunked the feasibility of a 100% wind, water, and solar system.

This fits in with the recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences:
Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Humans will be part of this sixth mass extinction. (At least some of them.)

News report here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.kurzweilai.net/robo...
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

First insects, now rodents? Maybe dogs, then dolphins, then humans?

Was able to read the study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/09/1700367114.full

PDF here: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

This is another PR statement that inflates the actual findings so much that they become unrecognizable. For those interested in the details, the original article is here (it is paywalled). The TL;DR version of the original article is as follows:

1. 1. There is a protein (ABHD2) that controls sperm motility.
2. 2. ABHD2 activated progesterone and is blocked by other steroid hormones.
3. 3. After ovulation progesterone is released by the cumulus cells that surround the egg. This release of progesterone activates nearby sperm to move faster.
4. 4. There is a class of compounds produced by plants that are called triterpenoids. Some of these compounds mimic steroid hormones.
5. 5. By virtue of their ability to mimic steroid hormones two triterpenoids (pristimerin and lupeol) can bind to ABHD2 and block it in the same way steroid hormones do.

These were the finding of the papers. Now look at the claims in the PR statement:

1. 1. Traditional Chinese medicine. There is hardly a plant or organic matter that is not used for one purpose or other in traditional Chinese medicine (Traditional Chinese medicine is akin to internet porn - if something exists there is a traditional Chinese medicine made from it). Plants make insane diversity of chemical compounds. Anyone will be hard pressed to find a naturally occurring plant compound that does not exist in at least one plant used by traditional Chinese medicine. While this claim may technically be true, it is completely meaningless.
2. 2. Contraceptive activity of the compounds. The compounds had marginal inhibitory effect (6-10%) on sperm motility when the sperm was activated with progesterone, and no effect on the motility of sperm not activated by progesterone. Will this prevent fertilization? The study did not report the results of experiments that will directly test the contraceptive effect of the compounds. This claims is obviously false.
3. 3. The compounds are not hormonal. Technically speaking, they are not steroid hormones. In reality, they act as steroid hormones, otherwise they would not have been able to block ABHD2. This claims seems patently false to me.
4. 4. "Perfect contraceptives". If you scan the research literature with the names of the compounds you will find that they exhibit all kinds of completely unrelated activities when applied to human cells. This means that one or more of the following are true; (i) these are "sticky" compounds that hit multiple targets; (ii) The compounds are not pure and is impossible to tell if what you observe is the activity of the compound or of the impurities (this happens very often when isolating compounds from plants); (iii) The compounds hit target that is important for many cell types in the body. Regardless of what the explanation is, these compounds are no "magic bullets". "Carpet bombing" seems to be more suitable analogy.

Well, the actual paper was published very recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which is reputable. They don't seem to be selling anything.

http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

This is the perfect tomato for human health. This research extends to tomatoes the same concept Norman Borlaug used to optimize the production of wheat and rice in the 60s. You know, the Green Revolution that legitimately kept the world from starving itself to death and decreased warfare. There are major health benefits from consuming tomatoes in any form, and this research increases production and descreases costs in a way that will increase tomato availability.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I agree, the fact that there are many more men as opposed to women does not indicate that there is mispractice in hiring. But! it suggests that we should look into it. ... and if fact, people have. I like to rip on the social sciences as much as anyone else does, and I have the feeling that the following argument is not immune to the "Social Sciences fail to produce reproducible results, " but I encourage you to take a look at http://www.pnas.org/content/10... . In this study, Faculty are asked to evaluate to resumes for a science position, the only difference being that in one case, the candidate is given a male name, and in the other case, the candidate is given a female name. The study (if you take it at face value -- I can't unpoison the well) suggests that *isms does show up in sciences: a lack of equal opportunity at the hiring level.

I think the diversity argument is a separate thread of thought, and I'm not sure why I can put my finger on if diversity in the workforce is a good thing. I do, but I freely admit that is a personal opinion. However, if there is a lack of equal opportunity at the hiring level in the sciences, then we aren't hiring the best applicant for the jobs; we're hiring the applicants which fit some preconceived mold for the bast applicant. And if you're a scientist, consciously or unconsciously, that mold probably is white or asian, and male.

Strange that it's accelerating if that's the case. Stranger still that it was falling until about 150 years ago... if isostatic rebound is playing a role near the arctic, possibly it's because we're in a period of rapid deglaciation in that region?

Looking at the graphs, the models seem to reproduce the overall features pretty well. Heres the comparison graph from the paper you cite: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

There are still some variances in the details, but overall, it's the way science works-- you start with getting the overall shape right, and then progressively refine details.

I should point out that it's hard to match the details of the Holocene thermal max because the details aren't really known. It's not even really clear if it was a global effect, or local-- looks like the arctic and northern Europe had a thermal max, but southern Europe cooling, and it looks like the warming was in summer, but not winter. Check out, for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou... http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedl...

Yep, that is a peer-reviewed paper published by actual climatologists. So much for that "consensus", eh?

It's very tempting to say "here's one paper by one group that shows a discrepancy, and thus that overturns everything we thought we knew!" -- but that's only the way science works in the movies. In the real world, science really is a cooperative endeavor. Don't focus on any one paper-- that part about scientific consensus is actually important. You have many eyes looking at every paper, and many papers looking at different aspects of the problem.

But, in this case, the paper you're looking at merely says "here are some places where we need more details" (in the measurements, not just the models-- keep in mind that we know a lot more about contemporary climate than we do about the climate 10,000 years ago-- we directly measure the solar irradiance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the global cloud cover, and the downwelling infrared, for example; all things that have to be inferred from proxies for the climate 10,000 years ago.

The Holocene temperature conundrum

Significance

Marine and terrestrial proxy records suggest global cooling during the Late Holocene, following the peak warming of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (10 to 6 ka) until the rapid warming induced by increasing anthropogenic greenhouses gases. However, the physical mechanism responsible for this global cooling has remained elusive. Here, we show that climate models simulate a robust global annual mean warming in the Holocene, mainly in response to rising CO2 and the retreat of ice sheets. This model-data inconsistency demands a critical reexamination of both proxy data and models.

So, from about 8,000 years ago, as CO2 and methane rose in the Earth's atmosphere and ice sheets retreated, temperatures FELL.

But climate models say that they should have RISEN.

THE MODELS DON'T FUCKING WORK.

Yep, that is a peer-reviewed paper published by actual climatologists.

So much for that "consensus", eh?

HBI (Human Brain Indices) Database is what is used: https://bio-medical.com/hbi-hu.... WinEEG did have this as an add-on option, but the department wouldn't splurge for it, so I was stuck using experience versus whatever WinEEG was nice enough to include for cleanup, to which presents another problem. If you clean up artifacts, you have to use the same processes whether it is the same or another person. And no matter how many artifacts you can remove, time, temperature, clothing, hair style, health, etc. affects the waves. The power source (50 Hz vs 60Hz for example) and hardware also affect the waves. At no point in time is a normal human being just a "normal" slate of consciousness. Facebook would have to use a computer to fill in the blanks and that computer would have to have immense processing power to keep up, to which AI quantum computers could do. You might want to take a look at this too: http://www.pnas.org/content/11.... It's about how many (~40,000) fMRI studies could be wrong do to software miscalculations and so forth. Here's a counter-argument: https://analyticalcortex.org/2.... And, I can assure you an EEG (electric activity) is not as accurate as an fMRI (metabolic changes), though they do complement each other.

Editor's @ PNAS must be getting desperate. The article starts off with "In general relativity, the picture of space–time assigns an ideal clock to each world line. Being ideal, gravitational effects due to these clocks are ignored and the flow of time according to one clock is not affected by the presence of clocks along nearby world lines." General relativity does not ignore gravitational effects. Full stop. A metric exists and its dynamics are determined by the Einstein field equations. These equations depend on the mass-energy distribution in spacetime. Continuing ... "However, if time is defined operationally, as a pointer position of a physical clock that obeys the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics, such a picture is, at most, a convenient fiction." Wow, really? Ever heard of Hawking radiation? See this. "Specifically, we show that the general relativistic mass–energy equivalence implies gravitational interaction between the clocks" No shit. "whereas the quantum mechanical superposition of energy eigenstates leads to a nonfixed metric background" So, a coordinate measure exists that can be transformed to another and that is implied by requiring quantum mechanics. "Based only on the assumption that both principles hold in this situation" So, it's not a "convenient fiction"! "we show that the clocks necessarily get entangled through time dilation effect" Try reversing the statement. Entanglement gives rise to time. Time, mass and matter are emergent properties of the causal propagation of patterns of interactions between timeless and massless causal paths."which eventually leads to a loss of coherence of a single clock" Who would have thought decoherence could occur in entangled clocks? "Hence, the time as measured by a single clock is not well defined." Time is relative, absolute genius! "However, the general relativistic notion of time is recovered in the classical limit of clocks." The general relativistic notion of time is absolute? Please.

Here's a study discussing mortality rate effects of the various forms of vehicle power: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Two highlights: Battery production does cause some mortalities, but charge the battery from a natural gas power plant and your total mortality rate is less than half the mortality rate of a gasoline vehicle. Charge with Wind, Water, or Solar, and you cut the mortality rate 80%. Charging from a coal plant would be a poor choice, however.

In addition to the other responses: you get to use your lithium battery thousands of times. You only get one use from a gallon of gas.
 
Also, many people have the option of getting electricity from a green supplier or purchasing their own solar panels to charge the battery.

Here's a study discussing mortality rate effects of the various forms of vehicle power: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

Two highlights: Battery production does cause some mortalities, but charge the battery from a natural gas power plant and your total mortality rate is less than half the mortality rate of a gasoline vehicle. Charge with Wind, Water, or Solar, and you cut the mortality rate 80%. Charging from a coal plant would be a poor choice, however.

Or how is it that you missed those news? Are those tomatoes even still on the market? I doubt it.

You're probably thinking of the Flavr Savr tomato. That one made the news, but involved the silencing of an enzyme involved in fruit degradation. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to things like the breeding Solanum lycopersicoides into cultivated tomato. These sorts of things happened a bit earlier, but I recall no fanfare or protest when for example the Plum Regal tomato containing the Ph-3 genes for late blight resistance from Solanum pimpinellifolium hit the market.

Needs to be replicated a few more times, especially after the various neuroscience debacles we've had recently.

seems like standard brain science statistics - a huge vector of possible brain features/locations crossed with a huge vector of hypothesized behaviors and, surprise surprise, some of the entries in the matrix are "significant." Better get a big publication - tenure review is coming up.

Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.

Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.

If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?

Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.

As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?

You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.

Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

OP here. If you breathe out enough, it'll experience die-off. No doubt. We have an aquarium in Townsville, where they have to be very careful to make sure the Ph of the water doesn't get too low, or the corals start to die. They're stunningly sensitive to it really.

It's really basic chemistry though: carbon dioxide + water -> carbonic acid, and calcium carbonate (which is the "skeleton" of corals) readily dissolves in (even slightly) acidic environments.

Don't take it from me, though: read the science.

All the models include a CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient.

Wrong. This is an emergent property in models, not a built-in assumption. It is also confirmed by real world observations today (e.g., here and here).

Are you saying you would prefer a study based on measurements from 1000 years ago? Digital thermometers were so precise back then.

Nope, never said anything stupid like that. Let me repeat myself: ...before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.

Rather than suggesting a stupid impossibility to the problem of disparate data sets from 1900 onward. Maybe a REAL answer like extending the proxy data forward AFTER 1900 and looking at what THAT shows. Other researchers like Michael Mann, famous for the original hockey stick kick off, have done similar test as part of testing their calibration of their reconstructions against the instrumental record. Here's a quote:
in the case of the early calibration/late validation CPS reconstruction with the full screened network (Fig. 2A), we observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming..

He went on later to note a new and improved statistical method(EIV) tested out in the same paper was much LESS prone to this problem. It also, incidentally, showed much greater range in historic temperatures as well, matching the current temperatures 2 or 3 times over the last 2k years.

That's not undermining, questioning or denying anything, it's a restating of the words of the author's themselves.

Then why did you say anything at all?

it's pretty blasted important not to leave that out when analyzing an abrupt change in trend exactly coinciding with a change in data source.

Which you just said isn't a problem because you are not undermining, questioning, or denying anything. So again, why did you say anything at all?

Sorry, I was already worried about sounding condescending by adding the detail I was, but it seems required.

The proxy reconstruction data is the best reconstruction that the researchers were able to produce. It's sensitivity to short term trends is uncertain, we only know so much and have limited data to work with. Within that context, the 100 years of instrumental data is a short term trend. Higher resolution reconstructions by groups like Mann(the original hockey stick author) show temperatures matching the current day within the last 2k years(look for his most recent EIV research if you wish).

In fact, Mann even notes that: in the case of the early calibration/late validation CPS reconstruction with the full screened network (Fig. 2A), we observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming.. Meaning that if they calibrate their reconstruction to the instrumental record prior to 1950, the proxies systematically underestimate recent warming since 1950. This is not listed as proof positive proxies miss current warming, but it is suggestive.

I put the notice of a distinction because so do the author's of these papers! It's not mentioned just for interest, but because it is important to the integrity of the graphed data. When comparing disparate data sets you need to take into account their different error margins, precision and uncertainty. The precision and uncertainty on the proxy construction is grossly larger than that from thermometer measurements. Accurately assessing the uncertainty and errors in the proxy estimates is an active area of research. I'm not decrying or reject it. I'm stating that because it's still on going it is wrong to jump ahead and simply assume it isn't contributing to the change in trend between the two data sets. Doubly so when work within the field, as noted by Mann, gives indications that could very well be the case.

The first paragraph from your wiki link (em):

Birth order refers to the order a child is born, for example first born, second born etc. Birth order is often believed to have a profound and lasting effect on psychological development. This assertion has been repeatedly challenged;[1] the largest multi-study research suggests zero or near-zero effects.[2] Birth-order theory has the characteristics of a zombie theory,[3] as despite disconfirmation,[2] it continues to have a strong presence in pop psychology and popular culture.[4][5]

Direct link to cite 2.

Where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land?

All over the place...

"severe crop failures and livestock shortages worldwide."
- http://www.livescience.com/370...

"average yields are predicted to decrease by 30â"46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63â"82% under the most rapid warming scenario"
- http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

"most of the Western Hemisphere (along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia) may be at threat of extreme drought this century."
- http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"25 million more children will be malnourished in 2050 due to the impact of climate change on global agriculture."
"irrigated wheat yields, for example, will fall at least 20 percent by 2050 as a result of global warming"
"business as usual will guarantee disastrous consequences for the human race."
- http://www.scientificamerican....

"Decreased arability. Prime growing temperatures may shift to higher latitudes, where soil and nutrients may not be as suitable for producing crops, leaving lower-latitude areas less productive."
- http://www.climatehotmap.org/g...

It isn't from the scientists.

That sounds an awful lot like "No True Scotsman" to me...

Ok..
Here is only one recent study.
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
There are loads out there. ... it's very difficult to see how injecting fracking fluid thousands of feet below the groundwater can have any effect on it.

Are you joking? You fail to see how injecting a crap ton of chemicals below the water table can impact the water table? Really?
You know that just because you put it in the ground, does not mean they stay down there, right?

BTW; the USGS website does say there are, though few, direct links between fracking and quakes.

Organic compounds found in drinking water aquifers above the Marcellus Shale and other shale plays could reflect natural geologic transport processes or contamination from anthropogenic activities, including enhanced natural gas production. Using analyses of organic compounds coupled with inorganic geochemical fingerprinting, estimates of groundwater residence time, and geospatial analyses of shale gas wells and disclosed safety violations, we determined that the dominant source of organic compounds to shallow aquifers was consistent with surface spills of disclosed chemical additives. There was no evidence of association with deeper brines or long-range migration of these compounds to the shallow aquifers (emphasis added). Encouragingly, drinking water sources affected by disclosed surface spills could be targeted for treatment and monitoring to protect public health.

Expel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... from your country since http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10...

Expel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... from your country since http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10...

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

It's pretty clear what is going on this is just more search engine manipulation http://m.pnas.org/content/112/...

There was actually a study published in PNAS about search engine manipulation being able to change election outcomes. They tested subtle manipulations in the results order, but presumably changing suggestions would have similar effects.

This doesn't address intent or the existence of any such plot, but it does suggest that the take that this is all ridiculous and can have no impact is not correct.

67% is not a consensus. [GiordyS]

Are you referring to the same AMS survey where 57% of the respondents say on page 24 that they don't consider themselves experts in climate science?

A poster above (arguing for the consensus position btw) posted a recent survey that indicates only 67% of AMS members believe that a majority of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. That's not a consensus. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.... [GiordyS]

That was me. Why do you seem to think that survey is a good way to estimate the scientific consensus on AGW among experts in the subject?

Estimating the scientific consensus on AGW can be performed repeatedly and independently by surveying peer-reviewed scientific abstracts which state a position about whether humans caused most of the global warming since 1950. Cook et al. 2013 (C13) did this.

Another method of estimating the scientific consensus is to email the scientists who write those peer-reviewed papers and ask if their paper(s) endorse AGW. C13 did this, but it can't be repeatedly indefinitely because the authors would eventually stop answering. One might also search for statements by those authors, to avoid self-selection bias caused by some authors not responding to emails. Anderegg et al. 2010 did this.

Why do you keep ignoring those estimates in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents explicitly don't consider themselves experts in climate science? If you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?

However, the evidence I've seen regarding consensus is mixed. I've seen some worthless studies - one "97%" survey only surveying~75 scientists and asking a near worthless question... [GiordyS]

Good grief. I've already explained that Doran and Zimmerman 2009 surveyed 3146 scientists, and reported all those results in their figure 1. I also already explained that their question wasn't "worthless". I also already explained that Doran and Zimmerman examined the most expert subset: 79 scientists "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".

Again, if you surveyed doctors about a topic involving heart surgery and only 77 out of 3145 of those doctors were actively practicing heart surgeons, wouldn't you be more interested in what those experts have to say?

But it's interesting that GiordyS doubles down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample. Keep that in mind.

... I've recently seen a paper that only shows ~65% agreement among AMS members for example. [GiordyS]

Since only 37% of those AMS survey respondents consider themselves experts in climate science, that's consistent with figure 1 in Cook et al. 2016 which shows the AGW consensus is lower among samples having less expertise in climate scie

The conversation was about the Cook study. And apparently you can't tell how bad a study is even if it's atrociously bad. "From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow." http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/...

Again, you meant to accuse me and NASA of apparently not being able to tell how bad a study is. And specifically, the conversation was about how the Cook study compared their own ratings to self-ratings done by the authors. Isn't it strange that all your supposedly "atrocious" rater problems actually caused the Cook et al. raters to underestimate the consensus rate compared to the authors' self-ratings?

Funny you should link the Zimmerman study - they surveyed 3145 respondents, but only used 77 of those to get the magic 97% number. ...

If you surveyed doctors about a topic involving heart surgery and only 77 out of 3145 of those doctors were actively practicing heart surgeons, wouldn't you be more interested in what those experts have to say? From Doran and Zimmerman 2009:

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

Doran and Zimmerman reported all the results in Fig. 1, which reveals a common (indeed, expected) increase in accuracy as one's subject expertise increases.

... The question asked was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Most skeptics and luke-warmers, including me, would answer 'yes' to that question. So the survey is essentially meaningless.

Since they show all their results in Fig. 1, and over 30% of the general public answered "no" to that question, it's not clear how Doran and Zimmerman 2009 was "essentially meaningless". Their survey revealed that even using such a broad definition, the general public has been grievously misled. Possibly by compulsive contrarians who don't have any real expertise, but who nevertheless have fun baselessly accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud.

And remember, Anderegg et al. 2010 used a more precise definition. What regurgitated excuse "justifies" ignoring Anderegg et al. 2010?

Here's a much better discussion on consensus: https://judithcurry.com/2013/1...

If GiordyS and Jane Q. Public's accusations aren't baseless, why do they keep "citing" blog posts, while I'm citing peer-reviewed papers along with statements from NASA and many other scientific organizations?

GiordyS just linked a blog post which proclaims a "52% 'consensus'" because of a 2013 survey of the American Meteorological Society. Had GiordyS really just not read about the new 2016 AMS survey revealed different results?

"Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% thi