Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate.
This is proper scientific scepticism, and is exactly how the scientific consensus works.
When someone falsifies a popular hypothesis, science has advanced immediately. From a scientific point of view it's not relevant how many hold a particular viewpoint.
Regardless of it's age, point 2 on page 2 says:
2. The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.
Which is, of course, false and it was known to be false in 1995 and 2008, but it proves exactly what I've said.
The section I cited was limited in time and thus testable. The section you quote is unbounded (and is a headline to a chapter detailed in full on page 9). Thus the refutation is simple - the headline it's correct or incorrect depending on from when you start drawing your trend. If we advance to the chapter itself they limit the statement in time and fully source their data (from NASA) and I'm sure it was correct at the time of publication.
You've failed to support your claim about HI, as you've failed to support your claim about "consensus". My guess is that you're not interested in science, only politics.
:) You must've looked really hard to find a document that apparently was published 15 years ago! Have the claims changed in newer documents with newer data perhaps? They seem to quote the 1995 IPCC report correctly. Even so, not even an old document supports your claim:
Page 14: "The small amount of warming that occurred during the past century"
You don't seem to understand the difference between procedure and knowledge. The scientific method is the process, scientific consensus is the product.
You keep claiming that, but it's not true. Here's a hint, it won't become any more true just because you repeat it;)
"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" --Albert Einstein
Orbital mechanics, plate tectonics and ulcers. The existence of a "consensus" says nothing about the actual state of science in a field. It might say something about how scientists fall prey to common psychological concepts just like everyone else though:)
I'll quote large parts of what Daniel Kahneman writes about in the book I mentioned back in this thread. Psychologists, while not practicing a hard science, do have interesting things to point out when it comes to our fallacies:
An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs,” individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention, most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the response of of the political system is guided by the intensity of public sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public good, all have faded into the background.
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening.
Which is a strange statement to make since that's exactly what the Heartland Institute says and pays other people to say for them.
Really? Where do they (and others they pay pocket change) say that? I can't find it in any of their publications.
Merriam-webster's definition of consensus: general agreement
If you don't have a general agreement on what is true and what is not, how do you tell what is true?
Something called "the Scientific Method":) There's no need for agreement whatsoever, and it has absolutely no place in science.
That's specious logic. First, I'm not aware of any big university that has only a single climate science faculty. Second, when presented with evidence that the Heartland Institute (among other similar organisations) pays people to argue that global warming isn't happening, you choose to say they're probably not paying them enough so it doesn't count? It looks like you're in denial.
Which other organizations? How large are their budgets? Are you sure you're basing your opinion on actual facts?
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening. I live in the southern part of Sweden myself, where the Little Ice Age is in fresh memory still (and played an integral part in the war between Sweden and Denmark over Scania). I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim, but it seems important for you to get the word "denial" into the argument somehow.
That's completely irrelevant to me. I'm talking about how science works. It has nothing to do with "consensus".
No, hypotheses that withstands tests over time do not rely on people _wanting_ them to be true or _believing_ in them - which are words used together with "consensus":) It's completely irrelevant and the concept of a consensus brings nothing to the scientific table. As far as I know, it's only used by conservative scientists who want to dismiss scientific challenges (see the links I posted).
Regarding the Heartland Institue, their total budget and the payouts according to fakegate won't even get you a cup of coffee in a big university. Thus it's proved conclusively that they (at least) do not operate a "denial machine" (your words).
Didn't fakegate prove once and for all that there's no real money being paid out by Heartland?
The rest of your post consists mostly of ad hominems and other logical fallacies, but when it comes to consensus it simply has no place in science. No scientist bases their work on consensus, they base it upon hypotheses that has withstood falsifications over time.
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The psycholist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman makes mincemeat of that statement in his latest book, "Thinking, fast and slow". He calls it availability cascades, where the consensus view becomes the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact, and the scientists who do try to practice the scientific method get the silent treatment (or worse, become labelled deniers etc).
In short, "consensus" has nothing to do with science. It has a lot to do with psychology.
It only takes one successful challenge to refute a hypothesis. It takes a new generation of scientists to grow up before the consensus is gone, since us humans sometimes have a hard time changing our convictions (and scientists are no different).
"the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism from largely conservative scientists, who were resistant to any change in the status quo."
The intelligent response is to be skeptical of anyone who comes out with some flashy bit of research claiming to have overturned the consensus. The moment you claim an entire field of natural science is suppressing some obvious insight, you are a conspiracy theorist.
A scientist should always be skeptical, sure. That includes being skeptical of "consensus".
Well I wasn't sarcastic, sorry. If the prosecutor planned on using the "wide database fishing search" defense it would be problematic if he/she thought you had an opposite view of how many faulty hits that generates.
If you've used google+, you know it isn't a competitor to facebook. It's a much better Twitter instead, with a bunch of people expressing their gratitude over how happy they are to finally be able to use more than 140 chars and have real reply-based discussions.
Did you at least qualify your answer with "That depends on if you're searching for someone specific or if you're just matching collected DNA to as a large as database as possible. Oh, and how many unique markers are used in the search."?
Else I'm not sure I'd answer that it _is_ accurate.
Especially since tree ring data started to deviate dramatically from measured data around the 60's and have gone awry ever since. Historically that data have been proven to be accurate, but I guess pollution and certain now banned chemicals were to blame for the trees to start behaving erratically.
If that was true, why didn't that same tree ring data agree with temperature centuries before as well? There's a very valid scientific alternative known as spurious correlation. Using only those parts would then be cherry picking a proxy that might not hold up to scrutiny.
Several studies show that the anomalous long-lasting Russian heat wave in summer 2010, linked to a long-persistent blocking high, appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability.
The problem is actually one of age of man:) We remember about 50-60 years back, and claim that changes during that time are unnatural (since they're different from what we remember). However, when it comes to rainfall the cycles are simply longer. These graphs from Australia are telling:
My point is that you should read more scientific papers:) There are many scientists who do claim that the sun's output has had an effect on the recent warming.
When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps, usually using a different color or something to indicate that it has been swapped out.
Factually not true:
"In creating the WMO graph, Jones cut off the tree-ring density curve around 1960 when it diverged from instrumental temperature and grafted the instrumental temperature onto the green line. This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph."
But with a full education you also know that the scientists who study solar influences on all do not claim the single value of TSI to describe those influences. Thus, your standard reply of "0.1%" and cycle vs long term becomes quite irrelevant.
Just for clarity: Cite the 2010-study over the 2009 one. Anyone who's ever studied even the most basic of statistics classes just sigh when 75 out of 10000+ is reported as "97%" - with questions that do not support the conclusion drawn from the responses.
The Doran & Zimmerman study doesn't help anyone who wants to claim fact based arguments.
the inevitable extinction of almost all life on earth
What?
Are you talking about the end times or some other form of religious prophecy? Else I don't really understand what you mean. It's most certainly not related to AGW though, since there's no scientist who would agree with the statement you made.
Slashdot Mirror
anti-Nokia troll Tomi Ahonen
If there's anything Tomi isn't, it's anti-Nokia.
"a close and careful reading reveals that Google's terms are pretty much the same as anyone else's, and slightly better in some cases"
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
However, his mechanism is that nearby supernovae cause cooler climates (how???)
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
This is proper scientific scepticism, and is exactly how the scientific consensus works.
When someone falsifies a popular hypothesis, science has advanced immediately. From a scientific point of view it's not relevant how many hold a particular viewpoint.
Regardless of it's age, point 2 on page 2 says:
Which is, of course, false and it was known to be false in 1995 and 2008, but it proves exactly what I've said.
The section I cited was limited in time and thus testable. The section you quote is unbounded (and is a headline to a chapter detailed in full on page 9). Thus the refutation is simple - the headline it's correct or incorrect depending on from when you start drawing your trend. If we advance to the chapter itself they limit the statement in time and fully source their data (from NASA) and I'm sure it was correct at the time of publication.
You've failed to support your claim about HI, as you've failed to support your claim about "consensus". My guess is that you're not interested in science, only politics.
It's a shame you can't see how ridiculous your statements appear.
I've cited numerous examples to support my stance. You've cited none :)
Here's one. You obviously didn't look very hard.
:) You must've looked really hard to find a document that apparently was published 15 years ago! Have the claims changed in newer documents with newer data perhaps? They seem to quote the 1995 IPCC report correctly. Even so, not even an old document supports your claim:
Page 14: "The small amount of warming that occurred during the past century"
Are you trolling?
You don't seem to understand the difference between procedure and knowledge. The scientific method is the process, scientific consensus is the product.
You keep claiming that, but it's not true. Here's a hint, it won't become any more true just because you repeat it ;)
"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" --Albert Einstein
Orbital mechanics, plate tectonics and ulcers. The existence of a "consensus" says nothing about the actual state of science in a field. It might say something about how scientists fall prey to common psychological concepts just like everyone else though :)
I'll quote large parts of what Daniel Kahneman writes about in the book I mentioned back in this thread. Psychologists, while not practicing a hard science, do have interesting things to point out when it comes to our fallacies:
An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs,” individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention, most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the response of of the political system is guided by the intensity of public sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public good, all have faded into the background.
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening.
Which is a strange statement to make since that's exactly what the Heartland Institute says and pays other people to say for them.
Really? Where do they (and others they pay pocket change) say that? I can't find it in any of their publications.
Merriam-webster's definition of consensus: general agreement
If you don't have a general agreement on what is true and what is not, how do you tell what is true?
Something called "the Scientific Method" :) There's no need for agreement whatsoever, and it has absolutely no place in science.
That's specious logic. First, I'm not aware of any big university that has only a single climate science faculty. Second, when presented with evidence that the Heartland Institute (among other similar organisations) pays people to argue that global warming isn't happening, you choose to say they're probably not paying them enough so it doesn't count? It looks like you're in denial.
Which other organizations? How large are their budgets? Are you sure you're basing your opinion on actual facts?
As far as I know, no one argues global warming isn't happening. I live in the southern part of Sweden myself, where the Little Ice Age is in fresh memory still (and played an integral part in the war between Sweden and Denmark over Scania). I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim, but it seems important for you to get the word "denial" into the argument somehow.
That's completely irrelevant to me. I'm talking about how science works. It has nothing to do with "consensus".
No, hypotheses that withstands tests over time do not rely on people _wanting_ them to be true or _believing_ in them - which are words used together with "consensus" :) It's completely irrelevant and the concept of a consensus brings nothing to the scientific table. As far as I know, it's only used by conservative scientists who want to dismiss scientific challenges (see the links I posted).
Regarding the Heartland Institue, their total budget and the payouts according to fakegate won't even get you a cup of coffee in a big university. Thus it's proved conclusively that they (at least) do not operate a "denial machine" (your words).
Didn't fakegate prove once and for all that there's no real money being paid out by Heartland?
The rest of your post consists mostly of ad hominems and other logical fallacies, but when it comes to consensus it simply has no place in science. No scientist bases their work on consensus, they base it upon hypotheses that has withstood falsifications over time.
http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1506-skeptic-history-a-tale-of-two-scientists.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/printall.php
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The psycholist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman makes mincemeat of that statement in his latest book, "Thinking, fast and slow". He calls it availability cascades, where the consensus view becomes the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact, and the scientists who do try to practice the scientific method get the silent treatment (or worse, become labelled deniers etc).
In short, "consensus" has nothing to do with science. It has a lot to do with psychology.
It only takes one successful challenge to refute a hypothesis. It takes a new generation of scientists to grow up before the consensus is gone, since us humans sometimes have a hard time changing our convictions (and scientists are no different).
"the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism from largely conservative scientists, who were resistant to any change in the status quo."
http://deskarati.com/2012/01/06/alfred-wegeners-continental-drift-hypothesis/
The intelligent response is to be skeptical of anyone who comes out with some flashy bit of research claiming to have overturned the consensus. The moment you claim an entire field of natural science is suppressing some obvious insight, you are a conspiracy theorist.
A scientist should always be skeptical, sure. That includes being skeptical of "consensus".
http://randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1506-skeptic-history-a-tale-of-two-scientists.html
Well I wasn't sarcastic, sorry. If the prosecutor planned on using the "wide database fishing search" defense it would be problematic if he/she thought you had an opposite view of how many faulty hits that generates.
If you've used google+, you know it isn't a competitor to facebook. It's a much better Twitter instead, with a bunch of people expressing their gratitude over how happy they are to finally be able to use more than 140 chars and have real reply-based discussions.
Did you at least qualify your answer with "That depends on if you're searching for someone specific or if you're just matching collected DNA to as a large as database as possible. Oh, and how many unique markers are used in the search."?
Else I'm not sure I'd answer that it _is_ accurate.
Especially since tree ring data started to deviate dramatically from measured data around the 60's and have gone awry ever since. Historically that data have been proven to be accurate, but I guess pollution and certain now banned chemicals were to blame for the trees to start behaving erratically.
If that was true, why didn't that same tree ring data agree with temperature centuries before as well? There's a very valid scientific alternative known as spurious correlation. Using only those parts would then be cherry picking a proxy that might not hold up to scrutiny.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
(And many tree ring studies do point to better correlation with precipitation and nutrients - that might not follow temperature)
Weather is getting more severe
Not according to science.
The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html
Several studies show that the anomalous long-lasting Russian heat wave in summer 2010, linked to a long-persistent blocking high, appears as a result of natural atmospheric variability.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00249.1
The problem is actually one of age of man :) We remember about 50-60 years back, and claim that changes during that time are unnatural (since they're different from what we remember). However, when it comes to rainfall the cycles are simply longer. These graphs from Australia are telling:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rerain.shtml
My point is that you should read more scientific papers :) There are many scientists who do claim that the sun's output has had an effect on the recent warming.
http://www.mpg.de/495993/pressRelease20041028
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarcycle-primer.html
Extreme weather events over the last 2000 years: http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
Warning - it's no fun reading.
When presenting tree ring data, they replace very recent data with actual temps, usually using a different color or something to indicate that it has been swapped out.
Factually not true:
"In creating the WMO graph, Jones cut off the tree-ring density curve around 1960 when it diverged from instrumental temperature and grafted the instrumental temperature onto the green line. This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=158&&n=653
(You might want to retract your ad hominem on the GP now)
But with a full education you also know that the scientists who study solar influences on all do not claim the single value of TSI to describe those influences. Thus, your standard reply of "0.1%" and cycle vs long term becomes quite irrelevant.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050702.shtml
And even small values can cause great changes if those values aggregate over time:
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
Just for clarity: Cite the 2010-study over the 2009 one. Anyone who's ever studied even the most basic of statistics classes just sigh when 75 out of 10000+ is reported as "97%" - with questions that do not support the conclusion drawn from the responses.
The Doran & Zimmerman study doesn't help anyone who wants to claim fact based arguments.
the inevitable extinction of almost all life on earth
What?
Are you talking about the end times or some other form of religious prophecy? Else I don't really understand what you mean. It's most certainly not related to AGW though, since there's no scientist who would agree with the statement you made.
They're banned in my country (Sweden). We're now awaiting the mercury increase leaking from garbage dumps ..