You may be right if you include all the papers that didn't express an opinion one way or the other. But you can't assume that papers that didn't explicitly express their opinion on the human responsibility for global warming were automatically saying humans aren't responsible. So even if you do it that way the number of papers that explicitly reject human responsibility for global warming is still less than 3%.
The models didn't just fail to predict the 'slowdown'.
No climate modeler would expect their climate model to predict such a slowdown so it is incorrect to say they failed to predict it. It has to do with the signal to noise ratio.
As I said in a reply to your original comment in this thread there will not be a new glaciation (ice age) as long as CO2 levels remain above 400 ppm, multi-thousand year cycles or not.
How much the planet will heat up and what level is even harmful, instead of helpful, is very much up for debate.
Since the next ice age is an inevitability, it's a race to see how much we as a people can prosper and prepare before we are all encased in a thousand years of winter - which is in the end vastly more a danger than even the most extreme warming forecasts.
There will not be a new glaciation (ice age) as long as CO2 levels remain above 400 ppm. You can take that to the bank.
To be clear the research we're talking about is just a review of published papers to determine the strength of the consensus on climate science. All you need to pay for is access to the papers and some people to read through them to rate the paper's support of the dominant paradigm. It is not research into actual climate science which requires such expensive instrumentation as satellites and supercomputers.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
It's interesting that all the climate science deniers do is complain about "crappy" papers when the studies that produced those papers are relatively easy and inexpensive to do? Why don't they publish their own rebuttal paper? Probably because they know they couldn't produce significantly different results than said "crappy" papers. All they've got left is to do is to nitpick.
There is plenty of carbon on Earth to produce a Venus-like atmosphere. No need to import it. Just get it hot enough to start oxidate carbon out of carbonate rock and it becomes self perpetuating like on Venus. No one knows exactly where that tipping point is but it's probably not imminent. Also the same basic equations are useful to model the atmosphere of any planet or moon with one so it is possible to compare the atmosphere of the others with Earth.
Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion. People may privately pretend to be a man, woman, dog, batman or whatever, but forcibly imposing their imaginary identity on other people isn't right.
What about the 1-2% of people who are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics? Those who have been called hermaphrodites although I guess the proper terminology for humans nowadays is intersex. They have to be accommodated too.
I'm aware of that study. It's probably good science but it basically contradicts nearly all other recent studies of the Antarctic ice sheet. What is particularly telling to me is the data from the GRACE satellites. They measure changes in gravity due to changes in mass in the Antarctic ice sheet. The GRACE satellites show a net loss of 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014. From a study published in April 2014:
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
And to be perfectly fair the study you cited may be accurate. It's possible that ice is accumulating in some areas of Antarctica while the overall mass balance for the ice sheet is negative. In a warming world warmer air can hold more water vapor which means more water available for precipitation. If it's still cold enough that will fall as snow.
Did you notice the bolded "on" in dryeo's response. Sea ice is not "on" Antarctica but rather on the sea surrounding the continent. Also your story is a bit old. Antarctic sea ice set a record in 2014 but in 2015 it was around an average level. It remains to be seen how much more expansion if any it does.
You're still betting that the climate scientists are wrong and the effects won't be that bad. Energy is a fungible product. It doesn't matter that much where it comes from and we know plenty of ways to produce it without burning fossil fuels. No one (with any sense) is pushing for radical restrictions on fossil fuels without having a replacement source of energy. Your assumption that it would drive the world into recession is just that, an assumption. It shows a lack of imagination on your part that you can't see a way to replace fossil fuels for the most part. If you're young enough to live another 40 or 50 years you'll find out how badly you lost that bet..
Water movement after the Japanese earthquake may have cause a short temporary wobble but it's the change in land elevation and position that the actual subduction zone slippage that may have caused a (relatively) permanent change in the Earth's rotation.
Sea ice has expanded around Antarctica (although not so much in 2015) but sea ice has no effect on gravity because it displaces an equal amount of water to its weight. And despite a recent paper about expanding ice on the East Antarctic ice sheet the GRACE satellites show that the ice sheet overall is losing mass.
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers,...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Really? What are you on? I want some...
Well, I live in Oregon where weed is legal now.;)
But seriously denial is a perfectly good word and to try and associate it only with Holocaust denial takes away from its meaning. As Mark Twain said before there was ever a Holocaust "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
There is some ice spread around the world but the vast majority of it is located on Greenland and Antarctica. When ice there melts it leaves the vicinity and more or less spreads evenly around the globe through the global ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right if you include all the papers that didn't express an opinion one way or the other. But you can't assume that papers that didn't explicitly express their opinion on the human responsibility for global warming were automatically saying humans aren't responsible. So even if you do it that way the number of papers that explicitly reject human responsibility for global warming is still less than 3%.
The models didn't just fail to predict the 'slowdown'.
No climate modeler would expect their climate model to predict such a slowdown so it is incorrect to say they failed to predict it. It has to do with the signal to noise ratio.
As I said in a reply to your original comment in this thread there will not be a new glaciation (ice age) as long as CO2 levels remain above 400 ppm, multi-thousand year cycles or not.
How much the planet will heat up and what level is even harmful, instead of helpful, is very much up for debate.
Since the next ice age is an inevitability, it's a race to see how much we as a people can prosper and prepare before we are all encased in a thousand years of winter - which is in the end vastly more a danger than even the most extreme warming forecasts.
There will not be a new glaciation (ice age) as long as CO2 levels remain above 400 ppm. You can take that to the bank.
If that's true then how did the 3% of papers the Cook13 study found that rejected the dominant paradigm get through?
To be clear the research we're talking about is just a review of published papers to determine the strength of the consensus on climate science. All you need to pay for is access to the papers and some people to read through them to rate the paper's support of the dominant paradigm. It is not research into actual climate science which requires such expensive instrumentation as satellites and supercomputers.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
It's interesting that all the climate science deniers do is complain about "crappy" papers when the studies that produced those papers are relatively easy and inexpensive to do? Why don't they publish their own rebuttal paper? Probably because they know they couldn't produce significantly different results than said "crappy" papers. All they've got left is to do is to nitpick.
There is plenty of carbon on Earth to produce a Venus-like atmosphere. No need to import it. Just get it hot enough to start oxidate carbon out of carbonate rock and it becomes self perpetuating like on Venus. No one knows exactly where that tipping point is but it's probably not imminent. Also the same basic equations are useful to model the atmosphere of any planet or moon with one so it is possible to compare the atmosphere of the others with Earth.
mi is a miserable person and probably always will be because the world doesn't work the way he thinks it should and it never will.
The paper money is issued by the Federal Reserve but all coins are minted by the Department of Treasury.
Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal opinion. People may privately pretend to be a man, woman, dog, batman or whatever, but forcibly imposing their imaginary identity on other people isn't right.
What about the 1-2% of people who are born with ambiguous sexual characteristics? Those who have been called hermaphrodites although I guess the proper terminology for humans nowadays is intersex. They have to be accommodated too.
Likewise, a nonproft has no way to save money for a rainy day - as revenues must match expenses ...
No, non-profits can have reserve funds. What they can't do is distribute excess revenue outside of furthering their core mission.
Boiling water to make tea may well kill bacteria and viruses but it doesn't do much for chemical pollution.
I'm aware of that study. It's probably good science but it basically contradicts nearly all other recent studies of the Antarctic ice sheet. What is particularly telling to me is the data from the GRACE satellites. They measure changes in gravity due to changes in mass in the Antarctic ice sheet. The GRACE satellites show a net loss of 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014. From a study published in April 2014:
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
I'm always surprised that study doesn't get more attention.
And to be perfectly fair the study you cited may be accurate. It's possible that ice is accumulating in some areas of Antarctica while the overall mass balance for the ice sheet is negative. In a warming world warmer air can hold more water vapor which means more water available for precipitation. If it's still cold enough that will fall as snow.
Did you notice the bolded "on" in dryeo's response. Sea ice is not "on" Antarctica but rather on the sea surrounding the continent. Also your story is a bit old. Antarctic sea ice set a record in 2014 but in 2015 it was around an average level. It remains to be seen how much more expansion if any it does.
Yes, when a big subduction zone earthquake like that goes off it reduces the diameter of the Earth slightly speeding up the rotation.
You're still betting that the climate scientists are wrong and the effects won't be that bad. Energy is a fungible product. It doesn't matter that much where it comes from and we know plenty of ways to produce it without burning fossil fuels. No one (with any sense) is pushing for radical restrictions on fossil fuels without having a replacement source of energy. Your assumption that it would drive the world into recession is just that, an assumption. It shows a lack of imagination on your part that you can't see a way to replace fossil fuels for the most part. If you're young enough to live another 40 or 50 years you'll find out how badly you lost that bet..
No, water is denser than ice.
Why not both?
Water movement after the Japanese earthquake may have cause a short temporary wobble but it's the change in land elevation and position that the actual subduction zone slippage that may have caused a (relatively) permanent change in the Earth's rotation.
Sea ice has expanded around Antarctica (although not so much in 2015) but sea ice has no effect on gravity because it displaces an equal amount of water to its weight. And despite a recent paper about expanding ice on the East Antarctic ice sheet the GRACE satellites show that the ice sheet overall is losing mass.
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Really? What are you on? I want some...
Well, I live in Oregon where weed is legal now. ;)
But seriously denial is a perfectly good word and to try and associate it only with Holocaust denial takes away from its meaning. As Mark Twain said before there was ever a Holocaust "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
There is some ice spread around the world but the vast majority of it is located on Greenland and Antarctica. When ice there melts it leaves the vicinity and more or less spreads evenly around the globe through the global ocean.